Feature Proposal: Automated Bounty Governance via Payment Receipts & 5% Penalty Fees to Stop Scam Bounties

[iyeanur6-cyber]

🏷️ Discussion Type

Product Feedback

Body

Hi GitHub Team and Community,
Currently, many open-source repositories use bounty tags (e.g., $100 USD) in their issue titles to attract contributors. However, there is no transparency or protection for developers. Some maintainers merge the contributor's code but hide malicious disclaimers inside their GitHub Actions/Bot scripts stating that the reward is just for "simulation/ranking" and no real payout will be made. This hurts the trust of the open-source community.
I want to propose a simple, automated, and highly effective Bounty Transparency & Penalty Rule that requires minimal effort from GitHub but creates a Win-Win situation for both GitHub and solvers.
⚙️ How the Proposed System Works:

1. The Post-Merge Deadline:
   If a repository has a declared bounty in its issue/PR titles, once the contributor's Pull Request is Merged, the maintainer must pay the solver within 24 hours. After paying, the maintainer must upload the official payment receipt directly onto GitHub's portal.
2. Instant Automated Ban for Non-Compliance:
   If the maintainer fails to upload the payment receipt within 24 hours, GitHub’s automated system will immediately trigger a Temporary Ban.
   This ban will completely lock the maintainer’s account, their organization/project access, and automatically track and block associated emails, phone numbers, and IP addresses to prevent them from accessing GitHub through alternative accounts.
3. The 5% Fine & Unban Formula (GitHub's Revenue Opportunity):
   To lift the temporary ban and restore their project/account access, the maintainer must settle the payment directly through GitHub's payment server with a 5% penalty fee.

The Solver Gets 100%: The main bounty amount (e.g., $100) goes directly to the contributor who solved the issue.
GitHub Gets 5%: GitHub keeps the 5% extra fee (e.g., $5) as a service charge for handling the scam/failed case.

Why this is a Win-Win Solution:
For GitHub: Zero upfront escrow management hassle. GitHub only steps in automatically if a maintainer violates the trust. Plus, GitHub generates a new revenue stream from the 5% penalty fees collected from malicious or failed bounty projects.
For Contributors: Developers can work peacefully knowing that if their code gets merged, the maintainer is legally and technically bound to pay, or else their entire GitHub infrastructure will be banned.
For the Ecosystem: Open-source becomes fully transparent, and fake "simulation" bounty scams will disappear overnight.
I believe this feature will elevate GitHub as the safest platform for open-source monetization. I would love to hear the community's and the GitHub engineering team's thoughts on this!

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[SankarLabs]

Just my thoughts on this, not against your idea at all. The fake bounty problem is real and I'm glad someone raised it.

I just feel like auto bans would be hard for GitHub to actually do. They have no way to check payment deals that happen outside the platform, and a 24 hour timer could be abused. Someone could spam bad PRs on bounty issues just to get a maintainer banned.

Maybe an easier thing for GitHub to add would be a "funded" label that only shows when the money is already deposited somewhere, like how Algora or Polar do it. Then people can see which bounties are actually backed before doing any work.

[iyeanur6-cyber]

Hi, Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I completely agree with your point about the potential abuse of a strict 24-hour timer and the complexity of verifying external payments. That is a very valid concern.
However, to clarify, my proposal specifically targets the Post-Merge stage, not just any open Pull Request:
Only Triggers on Merged PRs: The 24-hour rule or penalty won't apply to unmerged, open, or pending PRs. This means bad actors cannot spam fake or malicious PRs to get a maintainer banned, because the maintainer has full control over whether they want to Merge the code or not. If they don't merge it, there is no trigger.
Mandatory PR Resolution Deadline: To prevent maintainers from keeping a PR open indefinitely just to use the code without paying, GitHub could implement a fair time limit (e.g., up to 1 year or a reasonable custom project-cycle deadline) by which a bounty issue/PR must be officially closed or merged.
Verified Payment Proof via GitHub Gateways: As for validating external transactions, maintainers shouldn't just claim "we paid outside". They must upload the official payment receipt (from PayPal, Stripe, Crypto Tx, etc.) through GitHub's system, or use integrated gateways, making the transparency check fully automated and foolproof.
Your idea of a "funded" label backed by an escrow deposit (like Algora/Polar) is fantastic for the upfront stage. Combined with strict post-merge governance, it would make the open-source ecosystem 100% transparent and safe for everyone!

[SankarLabs]

Yeah fair point on the merged-only trigger, that fixes the spam issue I mentioned. If the maintainer decides what gets merged then nobody can force a ban on them.

The receipt part is what I'm still stuck on. A PayPal screenshot or crypto tx can be faked, or it could be a payment for something else entirely. GitHub can't look inside PayPal or Stripe to check if it really matches this bounty and this person, so I don't think it can ever be foolproof.

But if you combine your merge trigger with the escrow idea, the receipt problem just disappears. Money is locked upfront, PR gets merged, payment goes out automatically. No receipts or bans needed at all. Honestly that combo might be the stronger version of your proposal.