Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@andrew
Last active July 1, 2026 13:29
Show Gist options
  • Select an option

  • Save andrew/3aee7efe21271a89f6aaebd93df68d03 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Save andrew/3aee7efe21271a89f6aaebd93df68d03 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

State of OSS Funding: Jun 2025 vs Jun 2026

Comparing state-of-oss-funding (data from Jun 2025) against a fresh pull (2026-07-01).

ecosyste.ms scale (from ecosyste.ms homepage)

metric Jun 2025 Jun 2026
Packages 12.1M 14.4M
Repositories 287M 293M
Dependencies 24B 24.6B
Maintainers 1.9M 2.18M

All packages with funding links

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
Total packages ~12.1M 14,394,160
Funded packages 435,289 464,946
Percent funded 3.59% 3.23%

Funded package count is up ~7%, but the funded share is down, because total package count grew faster than the funded count.

Funded packages by ecosystem

ecosystem funded Jun 2025 % Jun 2025 funded Jun 2026 % Jun 2026
npmjs.org 158,505 3.05% 171,745 3.04%
pypi.org 52,265 7.04% 54,301 6.06%
proxy.golang.org 52,523 2.66% 53,976 2.46%
repo1.maven.org 38,330 6.85% 37,828 6.21%
packagist.org 31,153 6.62% 28,757 5.72%
nuget.org 26,065 3.48% 27,815 3.39%
crates.io 20,164 9.54% 23,027 7.64%
rubygems.org 7,210 3.6% 7,455 3.58%
pub.dev 3,508 4.95% 4,247 5.02%
bower.io 3,362 4.79% 3,374 4.81%
alpine 2,737 7.29% 2,727 6.88%
github actions 2,255 6.99% 4,015 12.30%

New entrants in the top ranks this pull: conda-forge.org (2,269 funded, 11.00%), swiftpackageindex.com (1,731 funded, 12.87%) — neither was in last year's top-12.

Notes:

  • PyPI has overtaken the Go proxy on funded-package percentage, and is closing on it in absolute count.
  • crates.io funded count grew (+14%) but its funded percentage dropped hard (9.54% → 7.64%) — crate count is growing faster than funding is keeping up.
  • GitHub Actions funded percentage nearly doubled (6.99% → 12.30%), the sharpest mover.

Critical packages: Jun 2025 vs Jun 2026 (script 1 results)

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
Critical packages ~9,780 (owners count) / ~10,000 (talk) 9,570
With funding 2,749 (28.2%) 2,672 (27.9%)
Avg funding links per funded package ~2 2.02
With >1 funding link 1,411 1,450
Unique owners 2,812 2,555
Unique owners — organisation 1,312 1,238
Unique owners — user 1,500 1,317
Unique owners with funding links 774 (415 users, 359 orgs) 731 (381 users, 350 orgs)
Unique Open Collective slugs linked 150 162
Unique GitHub Sponsors logins linked 667 687

Funded share of critical packages is essentially flat (28.2% → 27.9%), same as the all-packages number. Owner counts (unique orgs and users behind critical packages) are down across the board, consistent with the total critical-package count dropping slightly (9,780 → 9,570).

Funding domains in critical packages (share of funded critical packages using each)

domain Jun 2025 Jun 2026
github.com 86.0% 85.7%
opencollective.com 32.0% 33.7%
tidelift.com 21.5% 20.6%
sindresorhus.com 6.8% 6.8%
patreon.com 4.8% 4.5%
buymeacoffee.com 3.4% 4.3%
symfony.com 3.7% 3.4%
thanks.dev 2.3% 3.0%
ko-fi.com 2.3% 2.3%
liberapay.com 1.9% 1.9%
paypal.me 1.7% 1.8%

New entrants in the top 15 this pull that weren't in last year's: numfocus.org (1.3%), sentry.io (0.7%), palletsprojects.com (0.6%), paypal.com (0.6%).

Ecosystems by funded critical packages — several per-ecosystem totals are identical between the two pulls, which reads as the critical-package set being stable for those ecosystems even as funding status shifts:

ecosystem funded/total Jun 2025 % Jun 2025 funded/total Jun 2026 % Jun 2026
npmjs.org 1,252 / 2,289 54.7% 1,209 / 2,288 52.84%
packagist.org 303 / 548 55.29% 284 / 487 58.32%
crates.io 197 / 813 24.23% 210 / 813 25.83%
pypi.org 196 / 525 37.33% 198 / 523 37.86%
rubygems.org 183 / 974 18.79% 181 / 974 18.58%
conda-forge.org 102 / 390 26.15% 131 / 390 33.59%
repo1.maven.org 79 / 704 11.22% 92 / 536 17.16%
proxy.golang.org 68 / 645 10.54% 79 / 645 12.25%
clojars.org 81 / 280 28.93% 76 / 280 27.14%
swiftpackageindex.com 38 / 97 39.18% 36 / 97 37.11%
juliahub.com 19 / 173 10.98% 17 / 173 9.83%

(bold = identical total both pulls). conda-forge's funded share jumped the most (26.15% → 33.59%) on an unchanged 390-package critical set. This pull also surfaced many more ecosystems in the critical list than last year's deck showed — hackage, CRAN, Homebrew, hex.pm, Docker Hub, pub.dev, CocoaPods, Puppet Forge, MetaCPAN, plus nuget, bower and GitHub Actions — but it's not clear whether that's new ecosystem coverage or just wasn't shown in the original slide.

Top organisation owners of critical packages

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
aws — 287 aws — 283
babel — 139 babel — 130
symfony — 98 dotnet — 99 (new to top 10)
spring-projects — 91 symfony — 92
googleapis — 78 googleapis — 76
DefinitelyTyped — 75 DefinitelyTyped — 75
r-lib — 69 spring-projects — 68
google — 62 r-lib — 66
dart-lang — 60 smithy-lang — 59
smithy-lang — 59 dart-lang — 55

Top user owners of critical packages

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
sindresorhus — 181 sindresorhus — 134
jonschlinkert — 57 ekmett — 44
ekmett — 44 jonschlinkert — 35
dtolnay — 32 vincenthz — 28
ljharb — 32 snoyberg — 24
isaacs — 31 evanw — 22
vincenthz — 28 isaacs — 21
sebastianbergmann — 26 ljharb — 21
snoyberg — 24 sebastianbergmann — 20
evanw — 24 weavejester — 19

sindresorhus dropped from 181 to 134 critical packages under his name — the biggest single move in either owner table. dtolnay and google both dropped out of their respective top 10s.

Critical packages: Open Collective donations, Jun 2025 vs Jun 2026

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
Collectives linked to critical packages 150 143
Total donations $11,070,063 $15,086,768.96 (+36%)
Total expensed $9,393,780 $10,294,707.21 (+10%)
Current balance $2,401,580 $3,102,212.33 (+29%)
Total transactions 221,238 222,949 (+0.8%)
Average transaction $90 $113.84 (+26%)
Collectives with zero donations 2 5

Transaction count barely moved but average size grew ~26% — donation growth came from bigger transactions, not more of them.

Top critical collectives by donations

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
webpack — $1,665,827 webpack — $2,019,264
babel — $1,383,653 babel — $1,885,956
eslint — $922,378 eslint — $1,197,182
vuejs — $728,888 vuejs — $973,877
generator-jhipster — $420,679 generator-jhipster — $540,113
mui-org — $394,203 mui-org — $519,170
homebrew — $343,736 homebrew — $487,121
curl — $341,782 curl — $476,517
numpy — $297,795 date-fns — $421,044
date-fns — $273,986 nodemon — $348,534 (new)

Top 8 collectives are in identical rank order a year apart, each up roughly 20-30%. numpy dropped out of the top 10.

Critical packages: GitHub Sponsors, Jun 2025 vs Jun 2026

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
GitHub Sponsors accounts linked to critical packages 667 687 unique logins (672 matched an account in the sponsors DB)
With active sponsors 580 531
With any sponsors ever 607 624
With no sponsors 60 48
With no active sponsors 87 141
Organisation accounts 122 (18%) 133 (20%)
User accounts 519 (78%) 539 (80%)
Total sponsor relationships 21,942 42,619 (+94%)
— from users 20,455 (93%) 26,562 (62%)
— from organisations 1,401 (6%) 16,057 (38%)

Total sponsor relationships nearly doubled, and the composition shifted hard toward organisation-owned accounts — from 6% to 38% of the total. That shift isn't spread evenly: homebrew's own 3,157 sponsors is ~20% of the entire organisation total by itself, so one account accounts for a lot of the movement. Match rate on logins is much healthier now: 672 of 687 (98%), close to last year's 667.

Top accounts by active sponsors

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
homebrew — 791 homebrew — 795
antfu — 213 sindresorhus — 243
sebastianbergmann — 209 python — 193
sindresorhus — 207 antfu — 188
python — 197 yyx990803 — 177
yyx990803 — 191 sebastianbergmann — 168
tiangolo — 157 django — 154
dtolnay — 156 tiangolo — 143
django — 155 dtolnay — 138
tokio-rs — 138 tonsky — 130 (new)

homebrew barely moved (791 → 795) but everyone else below it grew, so it went from a clear #1 to nearly tied with sindresorhus at #2 (243).

Top accounts by all-time sponsors

Jun 2025 Jun 2026
homebrew — 2,787 homebrew — 3,157
sindresorhus — 1,792 sindresorhus — 2,058
livewire — 1,691 yyx990803 — 1,359
yyx990803 — 1,252 livewire — 1,192
antfu — 975 antfu — 1,040
python — 865 python — 966
babel — 834 tiangolo — 854
tiangolo — 769 babel — 851
sebastianbergmann — 615 sebastianbergmann — 655
django — 567 django — 632

Same ten accounts both years, almost the same order (yyx990803/livewire and babel/tiangolo swapped adjacent spots) — the most stable table in this whole dataset.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment