I have an idea for dealing with a question you badly want to be answered, which no one will answer, even after you've offered a large bounty: cash.

Users can offer cash, and whoever has the accepted answer can be paid, possibly via PayPal.

Does this sound like a good idea?

  • 57
    Just a note: Downvotes can simply mean someone disapproves of your feature request.
    – Troggy
    Commented Oct 12, 2009 at 19:30
  • @Troggy: I think it was suggested on uservoice (probably several times). I don't know if that suggestion was ever migrated here. Commented Oct 12, 2009 at 20:38
  • @Troggy: The second one's the closest, but I guess if it's a real dupe it's not been migrated here from uservoice. (Not that I ever participated in uservoice ... So I don't know for fact it was there, but I'll readily take Joel Coehoorn's word on that.)
    – John Rudy
    Commented Oct 13, 2009 at 2:56
  • meta.witcoin.com is attempting something similar (see bitcoin.org)
    – ripper234
    Commented Mar 24, 2011 at 15:38
  • You could just "donate" to Stack Overflow by sponsoring a tag or placing some advertising. That way you get to spend your money and SO gets some income.
    – ChrisF Mod
    Commented Mar 30, 2011 at 14:47
  • What's to say that you actually pay them when you get an answer?
    – Cole Tobin
    Commented Apr 18, 2013 at 23:19
  • 2
    In fact, real money were once offered on MathOverflow, but it was before it joined the SE network. tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1212/… mathoverflow.net/questions/74387/…
    – Martin
    Commented Aug 23, 2014 at 7:08
  • 2
    Bad Idea! Things get messy when money is involved.
    – Salman A
    Commented Nov 14, 2014 at 8:00
  • Isn't bribery illegal? Commented Mar 8, 2015 at 16:01
  • 5
    How about for-fee questions have answers only visible to the OP? That would stop the flaming and down voting. Let the OP decide which answer is of the highest value. Commented Apr 12, 2015 at 2:13
  • There are sites that do this already.
    – user161222
    Commented Jun 29, 2018 at 2:22
  • 8
    I don't know why this question got downvoted so bad. It doesn't have to be all-money or all-reputation. There are times when I'd happily lay down $100 or more for a quick answer to a question, or at least buy someone a beer for helping out with a quick line of code. I hope this feature will be added at some point. SO has a nice user base and makes it very easy to find answers to quesitons (despite all the downvoting of decent questions/answers) so IMHO it would make sense having this feature.
    – Nick M
    Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 12:05
  • 1
    In 2019 GitHub now brings money into their equation with GitHub Sponsors. Commented Nov 11, 2019 at 19:57
  • 2
    I don't understand why users are so adamantly opposed to the idea of giving money for a service. Commented Nov 14, 2021 at 18:22
  • I just recently tried to start a kind of coding competition, but now barely anyone even sees the -1 voted question. I wish I could've put some money in, to make it more visible and have more participants.
    – xamid
    Commented Apr 22, 2023 at 22:03

11 Answers 11


If I know the answer but am not willing to put the time in to answer your question for free... then I'm probably not gonna do it for $20 either.

But someone will.

Guaranteed, someone, somewhere has time to burn and needs cash. No guarantee they know the answer, mind you... but they'll take a guess at it. And since they really need that $20, they'll likely hang around and down-vote any other answers, while picking fights with anyone who criticizes theirs. Just look at the little fights people get into over rep now, and spice it up with some desperation...

So if you just want answers, and lots of 'em, but don't really care if they actually answer the question... And if you love flame wars... Then yes, this is a great idea.

If you like anything about the way the site works now, then it's a terrible idea.

  • 7
    That's a valid concern, but it's only an hypothesis. I'm not familiar with any websites when you can offer rewards for crowd-sourced tech advise. Either they tried and failed, in which case you're probably right, or nobody tried. I think bad behavior can be discouraged. You can detect unreasonable down-votes and spamming. Commented Jul 25, 2011 at 4:10
  • 45
    @Sjors: actually, I'm aware of several sites that have tried this. Google Answers was probably one of the larger attempts... That you aren't immediately aware of this speaks to the lack of success they achieved. ;-)
    – Shog9
    Commented Nov 12, 2011 at 2:47
  • 1
    I had this idea (question) and after reading this answer, the answer makes so much sense.
    – TJ-
    Commented Nov 30, 2012 at 9:25
  • 13
    This answer just won $100000 (unicorn dollars) Commented Jan 27, 2014 at 7:47
  • @Shog9. Just saw this question linked in a duplicate. After reading it, for a second I though of putting a paypal donation link in my profile page "Donate 5$ for buying extra ram for our SharePoint server".... :P
    – SPArcheon
    Commented Jan 27, 2014 at 9:48
  • 4
    I wish I could upvote this multiple times. It's the answer to every "why can't SO answers be rewarded with real money" question that comes up.
    – Marco A.
    Commented Feb 25, 2015 at 15:59
  • 4
    The OP can award the bounty to any answer he likes, it does not depend on the voting behavior of others.
    – emcor
    Commented Jun 13, 2015 at 15:47
  • 2
    I wonder: could you even prevent (technically or legally) a third party running their own platform with such a reward system? It doesn't take more than a link to SE and Stripe integration to offer a cash bounty, and one could use SE OAuth to authenticate answerers.
    – Raphael
    Commented Jun 13, 2016 at 17:26
  • 2
    In theory, you could hire someone to do anything legal, including answering questions on SO @Raphael. In practice, someone actually did set up a site based on SO data for this exact purpose. Last I checked, it wasn't doing all that well, but hey - give 'em props for ignoring the haters and actually trying it I guess.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 13, 2016 at 18:24
  • How about once downvote, he/she will not allow upvote+answer in this question. And once anwser, he/she will not allow perform any downvote within this question. Limit one downvote per user in this question. And limit the cash maximum do not too high.
    – 林果皞
    Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 10:43
  • 2
    This hasn't happened for reputation bounties. Why would this happen for money bounties? Desperation? Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 6:30
  • Folks have certainly tried it with bounties, @prax; there are numerous restrictions on their use to discourage it. That said... You can't buy bread with rep. Money has a whole 'nother level of motivations.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 6:34
  • IMHO downvoting should be limited to questions/answers that are defamatory/insulting/porn/spam/whatever. It should definitely not be available as a tool to manifest sentiment over actual content, and most definitely should not be available on questions or answers to questions with a "financial bounty" on them. Right now I'd buy Shog and Elias a bunch of beers.
    – Nick M
    Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 12:10
  • 2
    "Easy" is not how I'd describe that, @trusktr. There've already been folks trying to sell votes... Imagine how quickly that'd become lucrative if you could make money buying them.
    – Shog9
    Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 19:15
  • 1
    Bit of cutting off nose to spite face there, @ekadh - at that point it's no longer public q&a, no SMEs are vetting answers, no one can even know if their participation is worthwhile (e.g. if the answer they're writing duplicates an existing one). It's effectively a private marketplace. Nothing wrong with that, but... There are plenty of those already, with far more infrastructure and cultural support than what SO offers; no particular reason to try to shoehorn it in here.
    – Shog9
    Commented May 12, 2021 at 18:20

Joel and Jeff talked about this on one of the podcasts... they believe offering financial incentives reinforces the wrong behavior.

People should be motivated to answer questions because they are interested in the field, not because they are offered some money.

  • 3
    A bit like paying blood donors.
    – pavium
    Commented Oct 12, 2009 at 23:40
  • 1
    Blood donors get paid? And here all the while in Australia, it's done out of some social good. Pfft.
    – random
    Commented Oct 13, 2009 at 0:35
  • 5
    Yeah, people do start a bounty for rare blood groups. I know college students who sell blood once in a while and buys alcohol with the bounty :)
    – Amarghosh
    Commented Oct 13, 2009 at 9:59
  • 4
    "they believe offering financial incentives reinforces the wrong behavior." - So... they don't pull a salary/shares from Stack parent company? :)
    – DVK
    Commented Mar 22, 2010 at 2:37
  • 2
    Does anyone have a link about this? Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 8:40
  • 4
    By the same reasoning, we should do away with rep bounties.
    – Raphael
    Commented Jun 13, 2016 at 17:27
  • @Raphael Then reputation becomes 100% useless Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 5:10
  • 1
    @ᴡʜᴀᴄᴋᴀᴍᴀᴅᴏᴏᴅʟᴇ3000 That's my point, yes.
    – Raphael
    Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 8:30
  • 1
    @whackamadoodle3000, doesn't always have to be black or white, there can be some middle ground between rep/$. Possibly disallow downvoting questions offering $ rewards and preventing removing of $ rewards once offered, allowing only increases/top-ups. Any form of reward can break the way an application is desired to operate, including points or money. Offering $ only makes it all more real and worth the time.
    – Nick M
    Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 12:14
  • 1
    "financial incentives reinforces the wrong behavior" only if not done properly. What is the proper way? That's another question!
    – trusktr
    Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 2:27
  • Given the amount of misleading and obfuscated homework questions, puppets, ring-voters, plagged code, obvious lies and other sundry immoral/illegal activities that already exist on SO, adding money would just add scams and lawyers. I could put up with the scams, but..... Commented May 12, 2021 at 19:49

Yeah, and after you answer, if the person refuses to pay up, Jeff and Joel should have to mediate the dispute. Or, maybe we can just migrate the question to LawyerOverflow?

Sorry, but no...

  • 29
    I would have suggested illbreakyourkneecapsoverflow.com
    – user27414
    Commented Oct 12, 2009 at 19:34
  • 2
    I agree that dispute resolution risks being very expensive. Escrow can solve part of that problem, so does having clear rules about how a question should be phrased and how an answer is considered correct or incorrect (the latter two being useful in a free system too. Commented Jul 25, 2011 at 4:18
  • 5
    That's silly. A trustee system could clearly work: the person offering the bounty would have to pay upfront and wouldn't get it back. Every purchase on the web paid for with PayPal or credit card works that way.
    – Raphael
    Commented Jun 13, 2016 at 17:29
  • 5
    How about like in actual bounties, as soon as you start the bounty, the cash is gone. SE keeps the cash until someone answers it, in such a case the cash goes to the answerer marked accepted by the OP. If no one answers, SE keeps it forever. The asker is satisfied with having paid for attention, and SE gets cash if no one answers and wins bounty. Commented May 31, 2017 at 10:06
  • That'd be a good business model Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 5:13
  • This would be worth it just for the amusement of watching the discussions on lawyeroverflow.
    – CoryG
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 5:55
  • 1
    Money could be held in escrow by SO. Once someone offers $ as bounty the downvoting feature should be disabled and the poster may not remove the $ bounty, only increase it. Others should be able to add $ to the bounty as well. If OP fails to choose an answer within a reasonable amount of time (discuss) the highest voted answer gets awarded the bounty.
    – Nick M
    Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 12:16
  • (To the original answer, not comments) No, because the payment will have been made ahead of time, while posting the bounty, not after an answer has been made.
    – trusktr
    Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 2:26
  • I’m happy this thread is here because some of the answers have such an overconfidently negative attitude, like anyone who tries to stifle innovation with a rigid insistence that it’ll never work, they can predict the future and it’s proven; just because it’s different from their current norm. If monetizing answers brings new logistical issues, then put tons of intelligent thought into designing good solutions to those issues. It can’t be assumed impossible without repeated attempts at creating a functioning model. Even then all that can be said is a functioning model hasn’t been found yet. Commented Oct 28, 2022 at 9:57
  • Clearly would only work when the person offering money had to pay in front, with the platform acting as a trustee.
    – xamid
    Commented Apr 22, 2023 at 22:00

The Economics of Selling Information:

This may sound like an overgeneralization, but it seems that when you pay to have humans answer your questions, you often talk to so-called experts, and when you get answers for free, you either talk to a librarian, a random stranger, or an open source aficionado. The difference between the Google Answers' model and the public/academic library model appears mainly that when a librarian gives a patron a response to their reference query, the patron tends not to argue with her. If she tells the patron the question has no definitive answer, that response is more likely taken as fact rather than a personal failing on the librarian's part. The fact that all library patrons share the time of the librarians tends to encourage a polite acceptance that each patron's specific question is one of many needing to be answered.

In the Google Answers arena, I have seen researchers insulted, sworn at, and otherwise degraded by people not happy with the responses they received, when you might think that just not paying for the answer would be reprobation enough. Part of the Google Answers standards of conduct include politeness and friendliness at all times and not discussing Google policies or pricing with question askers. Catering and kowtowing to upset customers at the expense of explaining to them that their question was priced too low or phrased too poorly became a trade-off I had difficulty making.

While I enjoyed my time at Google Answers, I was soured by people asking $4 questions and not being satisfied with the depth of the responses they received, responses that had clearly taken a fair amount of the researcher's time. One of the strict rules at Google Answers forbids discussing the amount of money offered for a question. If the questioner offers too little, the researcher should simply refuse to answer their question. Of course, in the competition for scarce questions, this never happened, except in extreme instances. It seemed indelicate or rude to point out to a questioner that if they had placed a higher price on a response, they might have gotten better research and more time from the researcher. Is the customer always right if they want skilled research for $4 an hour? This "customer is always right" philosophy that pervades marketplace interactions seemed to override personal senses of reasonableness in many cases. Google Answers is currently working on guidelines for what kinds of questions most appropriately fit into the various price ranges. Researchers will welcome this tool.

The fact that there are people willing to answer a potentially difficult question for $1.87 does not mean that it is a good idea to encourage people to expect more research for less money, especially when supposedly interacting with experts. The Google Answers system prides itself on having talented workers and yet at the same time encourages — though does not force — them to frequently work for a fraction of the price that degreed, experienced experts could earn for the same work. While determining the free market value of this sort of information retrieval and presentation — most of which is available online, for free — is tricky, my experience working for Google Answers made me feel more often like I was being paid to do Google searches that the questioners didn't have the time or the skill to do, rather than using my research background and abilities to turn facts into actual knowledge.

In summary: There is far greater demand for (paid) work than there is for helpful people. Therefore people fight for paid work even when they don't really understand what they are supposed to be doing. Helpful people are a plentiful and easily "exploited" resource on the internet since having a computer and the time to surf implies a prerequisite degree of financial stability and generosity. Paid work and stingy answers go hand-in-hand. I have noticed that the best answers are often posted by individuals who merely researched the question for themselves. An expert well often post a link to an answer as a comment and then a fellow inquisitor who has more of a work ethic than the asker and more interest than the the expert (who already understood) will write up the answer found at the link. 99% of Stack-exchange questions are answered in books. Taken from this perspective the majority of Stack Exchange questions are reference-requests.

The process of creating scientific journals provides significant insights into the lengths that intellectuals will go to both pursue their interests and pad their resumes with little or no financial compensation. They are the antithesis of businessmen. I think a lot of this goes back to the psychology of melancholy individuals who tend to form a majority of the intellectuals: melancholies love recognition.

Stack Exchange currently is a facilitator in the sense that it lowers the transaction costs between an interested individual and someone more knowledgeable. Instead of e-mailing numerous experts I post a question and the available and helpful ones generously share their expertise.

Prestige is its own reward.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2."

Oliver Heavenside rejected financial compensation from Bell Laboratories for his work showing that a transmission line wrapped in a conductor has improved efficiency. He was holding out with the stated goal that he be given "sole credit" for the discovery.

Finally: It is more blessed to give than to receive. Helping on Stack Exchange is giving.

  • 5
    Nice quote, but what is your answer? How do you see this guy's experience translating into monetary bounties being a good or bad plan for SE?
    – Caleb
    Commented Jul 5, 2013 at 19:10
  • 1
    I believe you meant Heaviside?
    – Ben Voigt
    Commented Dec 28, 2014 at 3:46
  • 2
    @Caleb I believe it is a bad plan to offer money. If I want to pay I will ask a real expert with credibility outside SE and pay them properly. There are certain expectations when people pay money, and those would be hard to fulfill. More people would be put off than encouraged.
    – user161222
    Commented Dec 30, 2014 at 19:29
  • 1
    tl;dr: Google charged too low a price for Google Answers and the product fell apart due to poor customer support. Just like they always do. Commented Jun 28, 2018 at 2:53

This should be tested

You should at the very least run a limited test of this feature in order to see how it goes and validate some of the assumptions that have been mentioned.

All of of the objections I've seen on this thread and elsewhere sound reasonable, but none of them are good enough to justify writing this feature off entirely without even testing it.

If it worked, it could be an amazing addition to SE, not to mention a minor source of revenue for SE and developers.


People who are desperate for money will abuse the system

Well, sure, people will try. The whole point of SE is that it's very good at detecting and preventing abuse.

The link juice and traffic that SE provides currently is already a massive incentive for abuse, and yet they're able to handle it very well.

The same could be said about point bounties - because they are an enhanced incentive they increase the potential for fraud.

People should answer questions because they're interested in the field not because they are offered money

People respond to incentives. If people are supposed to answer purely and only because of their interest, then why have points and badges in the first place?

Why not just post the question on another freelance project site?

You could say the same thing about SE's resume and job posting services. Why not just use existing services that are out there?

The answer is that SE has an amazing community behind it. The chances that my question will be answered quickly and accurately are simply much higher on SE than basically anywhere else.

Introducing a cash economy into a helping/gratitude economy is usually problematic: http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/

I don't see how this applies.

What happened in that study is that people basically expected more "service" once they started paying for it. Instead of picking up their kids 20 minutes late, they started picking them up an hour late because now they're paying for it.

I guess the analogy might be that askers would become more lazy with their questions when they were paying for them, because they assume they should get more "service" and not have to spend as much time preparing a well-framed question.

Sure, it's possible that money could decrease the quality of questions, but let's test it to find out.

Again the same could be said about point bounties. Because people are offering a bounty, they'll get lazy about their question and just assume it will be answered because of the bounty. But in fact it's usually the opposite - bountied questions have even more thought put into them, because the asker has more skin in the game.

Same would likely be true for paid bounties.

What if the person doesn't pay?

Seriously? Just do the same thing as what is done for point bounties! Make them pre-pay with no guarantee of getting an answer.

If money was offered, it would feel like work so I wouldn't want to do it in my free time any more.

I don't see why you'd feel less incentivized. Maybe slightly more incentivized but most likely you'd just feel the same. It's not like this would be your day job - who wouldn't want some extra pocket change for something they're already doing for free, particularly when they're creating value for someone else.

At any rate, the number of paid bounties is going to be very low. Kind of like how the occurrence of point bounties is quite rare compared to regular questions.

So the presence of paid bounties likely wouldn't impact 99% of what you're already doing on SE.

A Use case

Here's the use case that I have in mind. Someone has an urgent situation that they'd be willing to spend $100 or $200 to get resolved right away because it's important.

Sure they could find somebody on elance for that amount. But highly skilled developers aren't going to be available at a moment's notice off of elance, even if you paid market or above market rates.

SE is in a unique position to be able to connect the highly skilled developers who are available within minutes of the question being posted with the people asking the questions who need a quick answer.

And yes, SE already works extremely well to handle exactly this scenario, without any money exchanging hands - which is awesome.

But what if you have a particularly hairy issue and the only answers that you've gotten haven't been fully baked or require additional time to validate that you just don't have at the moment.

You'd be willing to pay $100 or $200 for a rock solid answer that just works. Someone who might normally spend 10 or 15 minutes answering the question now has a little more incentive to go ahead and spend the full 20 or 30 minutes to give that rock solid answer that's needed.

Sure there's the possibility that the developer spends the 30 minutes and then the asker says they didn't feel the quality of the answer was high enough, and so the developer is frustrated by that. But that's an existing problem on the site just with the point system.

People answer questions all the time and don't even get them marked as the answer or upvoted at all. There can be mechanisms to help with this such as the askers rate of marking a question as answered, etc.

  • 2
    I think the Freakonomics study does apply, here the likely outcome is that people will be unmotivated to ask good questions, because they are paying for "the right" (so to speak) to ask poor questions, much like parents felt they were paying for the right to keep their kids late at day care. +1 because I would like to see paid models tested more in the wild, but I'm honestly skeptical that they will bear fruit.
    – kojiro
    Commented Aug 23, 2014 at 4:38
  • 1
    Right that's basically what I said and I think there is an analog in point bounties which doesn't turn out to decrease answer quality. At any rate, I'm skeptical that it would work as well! I just think it merits testing! :) Commented Aug 23, 2014 at 6:14
  • 1
    Having driven part-time for Lyft the past few months I'm convinced the best thing ever created to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road is the profit motive. Anectodal, yes, but the reported experiences of so many other ridesharing drivers suggests to me this is normal. I have been hoping some genuine study on the matter will be done, but it seems to be in opposition to the claims above.
    – user234810
    Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 16:21
  • 4
    Another counter argument is that if someone is wiling to pay for something, then they likely have more at stake. If the question is poorly asked and put on hold, then they will be incentivized to improve the question, quite unlike many of the current newcomers asking questions. Conversely, if a poorly asked question can be answered by fewer respondents, then the respondents will make more money through reduced competition.
    – user234810
    Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 16:27
  • Haven't read the entire answer (sorry, very short on time right now) but I do agree it should and could be tested at least on a limited scale just to see how it actually goes. I just have a hunch it may behave differently than speculated/anticipated. SO could call it a social or R&D experiment. If only people could remember how many times obvious answers were proven wrong throughout the pages of history.
    – Nick M
    Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 12:19
  • 1
    1) Up front payment for bounties, questions 2) highly upvoted answers are considered "answered" regardless of whether the asker agrees, 3) site gets 30% to pay mediators that assist with bounty question, etc. etc. 4) bounty questions are segregated in search results, subject to higher levels of scrutiny, etc. 5) minimum payment of $100. quality questions, quality answers only Commented Sep 17, 2019 at 21:39
  • 2
    +1 for being optimistic, open-minded and showing a problem-solving mindset. Maybe one day this will become real and the naysayers here will just seem like all the other naysayers in history who told someone with a new idea that it can’t work. I would love a paid Stack Exchange. I would like to get paid for answers and to pay for answers, as an additional feature on top of the current model. Commented Oct 28, 2022 at 10:02

I think it's a lovely idea and makes sense - from a blind point of view of a person asking the question.

But allow me to sum up what others have pointed: the money would corrupt the community.

Picture an eBay for buying rather than selling. You'd auction for what you want to buy, and interested sellers would browse for buyers. There are actually attempts of doing just that on the web.

I think the whole idea is still in the air (even 5 years later now) for someone to bring a good solution to it, eventually. Just not here, please.


You can already do this without modifying the existing stackexchange culture: just refer to it from a HIT in Amazon Mechanical Turk (which suffers from precisely the motivational/behavioral challenges discussed above) https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome


I think it's a great idea! What if my reputation run out and I still need the answer?

I see two possibilities here:

  1. The asker buys reputation which can only be used for making a bounty and the answerer gets that reputation (and not money).
  2. The asker makes a bounty on a question for real cash and the answere gets that cash (with strict rules to avoid incidents and angry people).
  • Downvoters! Care to explain? Commented Feb 16, 2023 at 20:49

The main principle of SE is that we love helping others voluntarily sometimes a lot more than we like to work. Work is brutal and psychologically draining sometimes. We enjoy this charitable behavior. Making SE about money would be like asking a well organized & successful organization staffed (almost) entirely with volunteers, why not charge money and pay salaries? The reason is that the people who have the advanced knowledge you seek already have jobs if they want them and you probably can't/don't want to pay something similar to their hourly rate/income. If you want to scout for affordable freelance work, there are sites for that.


I understand all comments warning that this would corrupt the SE community, but still I think this could be done in a "stealth" way, e.g.: there's already a feature that allows you to put a bounty to a question that has been unanswered; this feature works by subtracting reputation points from your own account to add to the question, but what if there was a second way? adding money instead of points from your reputation (the money would then be kept by S.E., and be converted to normal points).

This would be useful for people that don't want to spend their reputation points in getting more attention to their questions, or for people that simply don't have enough reputation points to promote a question. Bonus points if S.E. allowed cryptocurrency (e.g. litecoin, or lightning-bitcoin, to avoid problems with mining fees) for this feature. And it wouldn't have the problem of corrupting the community because the money cannot be earned by anyone, just earned by the StackExchange platform.

(Last but not least, this is also a way to monetize StackExchange without using ads.)

  • this seems to open a door for abuse: first one makes a sock puppet to buy bounty, next they answer a question and sock awards the bounty. Such a scheme efficiently means buying reputation for money. Given that so far whole system worked in assumption that reputation is gained only for content, a change like that looks rather risky
    – gnat
    Commented Jun 12, 2019 at 5:29
  • you could make it that a bounty is not paid if it has a score lower than zero; and faking questions and answers with higher score is harder
    – knocte
    Commented Jun 12, 2019 at 10:06
  • 3
    Basic rule of SE is that it's always be free for everyone, even for people who have no money at all. Having such a feature will mean the end of that attitude, since it means people with money will get better answers. Commented Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45
  • 1
    And now people with reputation get better answers... how is that better? Commented Mar 16, 2021 at 19:57


But, to prevent excessive use of this feature, questions can have a minimum price tag, for example say $25. That way people still answer free questions and not every question is a $1 dollar question that forces other good (free) questions to be ignored.

  • There could be even more features added to prevent scams and spam. Nothing SO couldn't pull tho.
    – Nick M
    Commented Sep 15, 2018 at 12:20
  • Yeah, it's doable. If you take SO as it is now and convert rep bounties to cash bounties, sure it may not be good. But with proper rules in place it could work.
    – trusktr
    Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 2:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .