[andrekorol]

If you're willing to move away from your proposed GitHub route, you could try implementing it on something like Gitcoin. The "wallet" you mentioned in the article could be a smart-contract that by the end of each month (or any desired period) would automatically make the donations directly to the crypto wallets of the projects that you chose to include in your sponsor pool.

That way, you jump over some of the implementational and regulatory hurdles. There would be no intermediary, such as GitHub, paying for the transaction fees. The transaction fees necessary for using the smart-contract on a given blockchain would be paid directly by the person making the donations.

[tzs]

> There would be no intermediary, such as GitHub, paying for the transaction fees

It sounds like there would also be no intermediary handling taxes. Each person receiving donations would be liable for dealing with taxes themselves, which could involve having to deal with the tax systems in every country/state in which one of their donors resides.

Unless your plan is to just ignore taxes and hope any tax authority that might want to come after you won't be able to obtain jurisdiction, you really want anything that involves accepting money from all over the world to go through some intermediary that operates in such a way as that intermediary is the merchant of record for the transaction.

There also might be issues with sanctions. If your country has sanctions against country X and you accept donations from someone in country X that might violate your country's laws. An intermediary can handle keeping track of that, making sure you only get donations from places that your country allows.

This could be even worse than the tax issues--at least with the tax issues it is other countries that might be trying to sue and/or prosecute you. With sanctions violations it is your own country, which is usually a lot harder to successful blow off.

[jacques_chester]

Blockchain-based solutions are a legal minefield. They attract AML and tax scrutiny and, if you've become a trustee, make it incredibly difficult to unwind the mess. "Your Honour, blockchain transactions are immutable and ledgers are composed of mixed units of account that can't be controlled and smart contracts are irreversible" will attract about as much sympathy as spitting on the gavel. When a court decides to impose equitable remedies, it won't care that you can't return gitcoin. It will seize, lien or garnish any old thing you own, because actual law is smart and smart contracts aren't.

Old-school financial arrangements aren't as cool, are much more complicated and much more expensive. But they are also vastly more robust against many, many edge conditions. High-level expertise is plentifully available to pretty much any degree of specialisation required.

[zelly]

> The "wallet" you mentioned in the article could be a smart-contract that by the end of each month (or any desired period) would automatically make the donations

Ethereum smart contracts don't work like that. It is push, not pull. The Ethereum world computer cannot schedule or initiate tasks without you creating and signing a transaction. Cryptocurrency just can't do subscriptions. The workaround is to send the cryptocurrency to a third-party custodial which then disburses subscription payments, but now you have regulatory hurdles, because there's a trusted entity that is holding your money.