A few days ago I read about IndieKarma on Jason Kottke’s blog . I agree with most of his remarks and I have a couple of my own.

I dislike the fact that IndieKarma is another walled garden. It means that both the content publisher and visitor must use the same system for transaction to occur and that’s a lot to ask. Building a more open system, which would allow transactions between parties belonging to different systems and wouldn’t be prone to abuse, is difficult and is probably one of the reasons why it hasn’t happened yet.

But I think it’s also a necessity for small companies like PixelPass , since as a visitor I’m unlikely to use more than a couple of such systems. Same goes for me as a publisher. If my reach is limited to websites using same service as me, then they’ll have a hard time getting traction. It will also be impossible to compete with big boys if they decide to move in this space.

IndieKarma is also a very apt name for a service that by its very nature is completely voluntary. Even if it was widely used on websites, it wouldn’t amount to much without people willing to spend money when they don’t have to. I’m sure there are lots of well-intentioned folks out there, but the enormous prevalence of ad supported services and the fact that most users will be freeloaders makes me doubtful.

Still, it’s a nice idea with approach that might work. I certainly hope it does.