Hello I'm Rodrigo, co-founder of Quine (https://quine.sh). We are building novel ways for software creators to monetise their work, skills, and reputation.

Today we're releasing our first product, GitNFT (https://gitnft.quine.sh/), which enables developers to autograph and mint NFTs of their GitHub commits and list them in the OpenSea marketplace for collectors to buy.

We think commits are a great collector item. They're unique, have verifiable authorship, and are immutable by design. Moreover, they can store substantial collector value, either for their historical significance, the coolness/beauty of their code, or the popularity of the author!

The world’s digital infrastructure feeds on Open-Source Software (OSS), yet the economic value it generates does not back-propagate to its creators. GitNFT is a new monetisation mechanism that aims to make Open-Source work economically sustainable

I'm probably in the minority on this orange site but... I do not get why anyone would every buy an NFT. It just seems pointless.

First reaction: NFT groan; post-reading a couple of comments reaction: Oh yeah true, kind of a nice didn't-need-anything-but-thanks sponsorship 'swag'...

Considered reaction: if that's the target, a novel way to do sponsorship, they don't need to be tradeable right? In fact, it's harmful, since the sponsee gets nothing from the secondary market. So why NFTs, why not some mechanism for including the sponsor in the actual commit (for some number of commits, or a time period or whatever)? As you say, they're already immutable. Stick 'sponsored by' in there just like 'signed-off by'? Authored by Linus, Committed by SponsorBot<SponsorName>?

This is super cool, a really neat way to channel value back to the open source devs who make (a lot of) the world go round