Sponsorship Funding in Open-Source Software: Incentivize or Crowd-Out Motivations to Create, Maintain and Share?
Open accessAbstract
This study investigates the effects of sponsorship-based funding on open-source software contributors' behavior. We examine how sponsorship impacts contributors' creation and maintenance activities on the host platform where funding is received, as well as the spillover effects on a complementary knowledge-sharing platform. While sponsorship is expected to increase overall effort, its effects on different contribution types and spillover to other platforms remain unclear. To address these questions, we analyze the impact of Github's sponsorship feature, introduced in 2019, on contribution behavior. Using individual-level panel data from both the host platform (Github or GH) and the complementary platform (Stack Overflow or SO), we employ a difference-in-differences estimation methodology. Our findings reveal that sponsorship funding increases maintenance-related activities (e.g., pull request reviews) while leaving creation activities (e.g., pull requests) unaffected, indicating an effort reallocation effect. Moreover, we observe a negative spillover on knowledge-sharing activities on SO, suggesting an effort distortion effect. Interestingly, this negative spillover is limited to knowledge-creation activities (e.g., answers and questions), while maintenance-related activities (e.g., edits and reviews) remain unaffected, evidence of an effort mirroring effect. We attribute these findings to motivational differences between creation and maintenance activities. Sponsorship funding appears to boost less rewarding activities such as maintenance of software, while intrinsically motivated creation activities remain largely unaffected. We further investigate the underlying mechanisms and observe a crowding-out effect on creation activities for contributors who are more involved with the OSS community. Our findings provide empirical evidence that sponsorship funding can be a powerful tool to incentivize maintenance-related activities in open-source software.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
PR reviews capture the time and effort required from contributors to evaluate, correct, and integrate submitted code.
“we measured maintenance effort at the individual level using PR reviews, which capture the time and effort required from contributors to evaluate, correct, and integrate submitted code (Medappa et al. 2023).”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Medappa et al. 2023
Maintenance tasks in OSS are generally less intrinsically driven and typically assigned to contributors who possess both technical expertise and trust of the community to ensure the quality and reliability of the codebase.
“These maintenance tasks are generally less intrinsically driven and typically assigned to contributors who possess both technical expertise and trust of the community to ensure the quality and reliability of the codebase (Medappa et al. 2023, Eghbal 2020).”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Medappa et al. 2023
Focusing on the PR review process is particularly well suited to OSS contexts, where code is continuously developed, reviewed, and deployed into production with rapid and frequent version updates.
“Focusing on the PR review process is particularly well suited to OSS contexts, where code is continuously developed, reviewed, and deployed into production, often with rapid and frequent version updates (Roberts et al. 2006, Medappa et al. 2023).”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Medappa et al. 2023
Cites
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666 · see citing works
Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing
Goodman-Bacon, A. (2021) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014 · Cited by 8,046 · see citing works
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176 · see citing works
News Media Channels: Complements or Substitutes? Evidence from Mobile Phone Usage
Xu, J., Forman, C., Kim, J. B., & Van Ittersum, K. (2014) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.13.0198 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Hann, I.-H., Roberts, J. A., & Slaughter, S. A. (2013) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2013.0474 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Acceptance of Monetary Rewards in Open Source Software Development
Krishnamurthy, S., Ou, S., & Tripathi, A. K. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.007 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xu, F., Medappa, P. K., Tunc, M. M., Vroegindeweij, M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5521379 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationXu, F., Medappa, P. K., Tunc, M. M., Vroegindeweij, M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.10165 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Medappa, P. K., Tunc, M. M., & Li, X.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- HEC Paris (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Medappa, Poonacha K.
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4381955850
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Keywords
- open source software, contributor behavior, software maintenance, knowledge sharing, crowding out, intrinsic motivation, Stack Overflow, spillover effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review