The Onion Model for Career Progression in Bitcoin Open-Source Development

Abstract

This article introduces the Onion Model for Career Progression in Bitcoin Open-Source Development, which delineates the layered growth of involvement and competency necessary for developers to advance from initial interest to technical leadership in this specialized ecosystem. The model is derived from ethnographic research, participant observation, and literature research, mapping the typical career trajectory and the barriers newcomers — especially underrepresented groups like women — face. The framework outlines steps for skill acquisition, community involvement, and identifies critical factors that influence retention and success. The findings emphasize the need for inclusive educational environments and targeted mentorship to diversify and enhance Bitcoin development.

Introduction

The rapid evolution of Bitcoin and its ecosystem has created a unique landscape for open-source software development, driven by its decentralized, community-oriented nature. Despite the potential to democratize access to software development opportunities, the Bitcoin ecosystem poses challenges for newcomers, particularly women and other underrepresented groups. Previous studies (Crowston & Howison, 2005; Vasilescu et al., 2015) reveal persistent gender gaps and cultural barriers within open-source communities, indicating a need for structured pathways to support diverse participation.

This article presents the Onion Model as a novel conceptual framework for understanding career progression in the Bitcoin open-source ecosystem. The model addresses existing career pathways' fragmented and often exclusionary nature, proposing a clear, layered approach to competency development. Building on existing theories of open-source collaboration (Raymond, 2001), the Onion Model focuses on diversity, mentorship, and inclusive practices. By visualizing the developmental journey as a series of layers, the model provides insights into both the challenges and opportunities that define a career in Bitcoin development.

Methodology

The Onion Model is based on ethnographic research, literature review, and participant observation within Bitcoin and broader open-source communities. The methodology includes:

Ethnographic Research: Conducted since April 2022, this involves active participation as a developer learning Bitcoin technology and engaging in beginner-oriented developer communities. The research focuses on understanding community dynamics, onboarding processes, and support structures, particularly investigating the retention and integration of new members into long-term roles.

Literature Review: A systematic review of existing literature on open-source software development, diversity in technology, and community dynamics (e.g., Ford et al., 2016; Robles et al., 2016). This review helps contextualize observations within broader theoretical frameworks, identifying gaps and challenges that the Onion Model aims to address.

Combining these methods provides a comprehensive foundation for the Onion Model, grounding it in empirical observations of community behavior and academic discourse. This mixed-methods approach allows for a deeper understanding of retention challenges, potential solutions, and areas of research for diversifying and expanding community engagement in Bitcoin development.

Theoretical Framework

The Onion Model is informed by several theoretical perspectives that converge at the intersection of open-source development, community inclusion, and career development:

Open-Source Collaboration Theories: Building on Raymond’s (2001) “The Cathedral and the Bazaar,” which describes the organizational dynamics of open-source projects, the Onion Model situates itself within this tradition but emphasizes a more structured, inclusive, and transparent career development pathway.

Diversity and Inclusion Frameworks: Research has demonstrated that diversity within development teams leads to more robust software solutions and fosters innovation (Page, 2007). The Onion Model integrates these findings by proposing targeted interventions at each career layer to support diverse participation, particularly among women and other underrepresented groups.

Community Dynamics and Power Structures: Understanding power dynamics within open-source communities is essential to addressing exclusionary practices. Reagle (2013) discusses the impact of gender biases in “free culture” communities and how influencers shape narratives. The Onion Model incorporates these insights to advocate for a more democratized and transparent pathway for career advancement.

Results: The Onion Model

The Onion Model is organized into six distinct layers, each representing a stage of development and involvement within the Bitcoin open-source ecosystem.

Layer 1 — Intrinsic Curiosity and Fundamental Knowledge

At the initial stage, individuals entering the Bitcoin ecosystem are often driven by a curiosity to understand cryptocurrency concepts. Activities include self-study through introductory articles, participation in local meetups, and discussions on forums and Discord servers. However, newcomers frequently face barriers such as fragmented information, dense technical jargon, and commodification of basic knowledge (Vasilescu et al., 2015).

Influencers who commodify knowledge by selling fragmented information or framing Bitcoin development within specific ideologies may foster dependency among their audience, creating potential barriers to independent learning for beginners (Golumbia, 2016). Addressing these challenges early on is essential for building a robust and diverse open-source development community. Establishing inclusive and welcoming environments emphasizing respect, empathy, and mutual support is critical for providing the foundational guidance and safe spaces newcomers need to grow and thrive (Guo & Reinecke, 2014).

Layer 2 — Exploring Projects and Initial Contributions

The rise of stronger parasocial dependencies at this layer creates a barrier. Influential experts within the community may establish themselves as gatekeepers of valuable knowledge, which they commodify by selling courses, books, workshops, private consultations, and access to paid-tiered communities. This dynamic not only perpetuates an uneven playing field but also creates a reliance on these figures for career progression. Such environments can become exclusionary, discouraging genuine participation from those without the means or networks to navigate these informal economies.

At this stage, successful participants explore more structured ways to contribute to the Bitcoin ecosystem, often focusing on non-code areas such as documentation, translations, design, user experience (UX), community building, and educational content. This layer is critical for non-developers acquiring their first grants as UX designers, product managers, and educators. However, navigating parasocial dependencies where influential figures act as gatekeepers can create significant barriers to meaningful engagement and grant acquisition. This is a delicate stage with a high risk of loss of talent.

Layer 3 — Technical Development and Code Contributions

Here, developers focus on making code contributions, testing software, participating in technical discussions, and contributing to issues and pull requests (PRs). At this stage, developers face significant challenges, requiring them to quickly grasp Bitcoin’s technical intricacies while also adapting to the community’s culture and norms. Relying on local developer communities for mentorship and support can be both beneficial and problematic, particularly if these communities lack sensitivity to inclusivity or perpetuate toxic environments (Ford et al., 2016; Faulkner, 2007).

Layer 4 — Review and Mentorship

Developers who have built a reputation through consistent contributions begin transitioning into leadership roles, focusing on mentorship and code review. This phase involves maintaining code quality and fostering an inclusive and collaborative environment. Ensuring that the culture around code review is constructive and supportive is crucial to preventing burnout and promoting a healthy development environment (Storey, 2006; Dabbish et al., 2012).

Layer 5 — Grants and Financial Support

At this layer, developers who have established themselves through substantial contributions often seek financial support to sustain their open-source work. Transparent practices, active community engagement, and sustainable funding models are vital for maintaining project longevity and developer commitment (Fogel, 2005). However, power dynamics within communities can lead to exclusivity, and thus equitable access to these opportunities must be ensured (Crowston & Howison, 2005; Lakhani & Von Hippel, 2003).

Core Layer — Core Development and Technical Leadership

At the core layer, developers who have demonstrated extensive technical expertise and commitment rise to pivotal roles that directly shape the future of Bitcoin development. These individuals, often known as Core Developers, engage in high-stakes decision-making processes and contribute to protocol design and Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). Ensuring diversity at this level is vital for the continued innovation and security of Bitcoin (Page, 2007).

Discussion

The Onion Model presents a structured framework for understanding career progression in Bitcoin open-source development while highlighting the necessity of inclusivity and support, especially for beginners. Although Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) environments are often perceived as meritocratic, studies such as Crowston & Howison (2005) demonstrate that cultural and structural barriers can impede the participation of underrepresented groups, especially women. While Lakhani & Von Hippel (2003) show that alternative funding models like grants and sponsorships can provide some stability, they also reveal that these opportunities are often opaque and difficult for newcomers to navigate without sufficient guidance.

The challenge of navigating parasocial dependencies within Bitcoin communities adds another layer of complexity. The ability of influential figures to control access to information can create gatekeeping dynamics that stifle newcomers, enable discrimination of women, and limit the diversity of thought and participation. This aligns with Vasilescu et al. (2015) and Ford et al. (2016), who emphasize the critical role of mentorship and structured pathways to encourage retention and success for underrepresented groups in open-source environments.

The Onion Model calls for targeted interventions to address these systemic issues, such as establishing women-exclusive educational spaces and mentorship programs. While studies like Robles et al. (2016) suggest that such environments can significantly improve retention rates for women, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Initiatives like Scalar School aim to explore these strategies by creating educational programs prioritizing safety, respect, and inclusivity. However, we must be cautious not to overpromise; while women-only spaces might provide immediate relief from the hostile climates often found in more open forums, they are not a panacea. The community must critically evaluate these interventions and remain open to other possibilities — potentially even more radical ones.

Programs like Scalar School operate under MIT licenses and are committed to open, peer-reviewed collaboration. By offering high-quality, open-access educational resources and reports, such initiatives can challenge the knowledge gatekeeping that is prevalent in Bitcoin and other FOSS projects. However, the larger problem of power dynamics within the community remains a pressing issue. Even with transparent educational programs, the entrenched structures that favor certain groups or individuals over others must be addressed through more comprehensive community-led efforts.

Combining academic rigor with practical, hands-on learning can also help create new research and development hubs within Bitcoin and FOSS communities. This approach aligns with calls for more inclusive research environments to foster innovation and address deep-seated inequities (Page, 2007; Reagle, 2013). Scalar School is one such experiment, seeking to test whether a focused and inclusive environment can yield better outcomes for marginalized groups in Bitcoin development. Yet, this is merely a starting point. The question of how to eradicate the discrimination of women remains open. More research is needed to explore these aspects.

The comprehensive strategy suggested by the Onion Model — integrating diverse educational resources, providing free access to information for beginners without commercial conflicts of interest, enforcing clear codes of conduct within developer communities and holding community leaders accountable for their work on inclusion, creating safe educational and development spaces exclusively for women to mitigate the crisis, and fostering open collaboration to address Bitcoin development’s social problems — is a preliminary framework. However, systemic change in FOSS, including Bitcoin development, will require more than structured education and mentorship. It demands a collective effort to examine and dismantle existing power structures, rethink what inclusivity means in practice, and explore new, perhaps unconventional, solutions for community health and sustainability.

Reaching Consensus: Inclusion is Not Optional

Kelty (2008) reminds us that free software is not merely a technological movement but a social one, where norms, values, and collaborative efforts shape the ecosystem. However, the reliance on consensus in open-source development becomes problematic in environments marked by discrimination. If certain voices are marginalized or silenced, any consensus reached is inherently flawed and unrepresentative (Reagle, 2013). In Bitcoin development — where decentralized governance and community-driven decision-making are core values — the legitimacy of consensus is compromised without genuine inclusion and the decentralization of efforts and visions.

To make real progress, we need to address urgent issues head-on. For instance, creating women-only educational spaces could temporarily mitigate the effects of harassment and discrimination. However, these spaces are not the final answer; they are a stopgap to help women build confidence and competence in a safer environment. Real change requires confronting the root causes of toxic behavior, such as gatekeeping and ideological monopolies, and sometimes, that might mean radically rethinking community norms, such as creating more robust mechanisms for accountability and equitable participation.

Building Pathways for Sustainable Inclusion

The long-term goal for diversifying Bitcoin development must focus on creating robust and supportive pathways that address the specific barriers women face. While certain programs can include other marginalized groups, the focus on women should be clear, recognizing their unique challenges. This approach may involve expanding the curriculum from basic technical skills to advanced leadership, mentorship, and strategies for securing funding.

Research supports the idea that environments centered on marginalized groups foster more inclusive and empathetic practices, which could benefit the entire community (Page, 2007). However, building these pathways requires careful, ongoing evaluation and adaptation, such as implementing regular feedback loops, conducting community impact assessments, and making data-driven adjustments.

The vision of achieving a 50/50 gender balance in open-source communities is ambitious, but it is grounded in evidence showing that diverse teams are better equipped to solve complex problems and innovate (Page, 2007). Yet, it’s essential to remain pragmatic and acknowledge that achieving this balance involves continuous experimentation, iteration, and broader community awareness and support

Conclusion

The Onion Model provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the progression of open-source careers in Bitcoin development, emphasizing the importance of inclusive and supportive environments at each stage. The framework highlights the need for targeted interventions, such as women-exclusive educational spaces and structured mentorship programs, to mitigate the negative impacts of harassment, exclusion, and power imbalances. While Scalar School is one example of an initiative exploring these strategies, it is critical to remember that these are starting points for discussion rather than definitive solutions.

The real challenge lies in transforming the broader Bitcoin and FOSS communities into environments that truly reflect the values of decentralization, transparency, and inclusivity. Addressing systemic issues like gatekeeping, parasocial dependencies, and biased power structures requires a collective effort from all stakeholders — developers, educators, researchers, and community leaders alike.

Future studies could focus on understanding the effectiveness of various inclusive practices within different contexts of open-source development:

Evaluating the Impact of Women-Exclusive Spaces: Longitudinal studies could assess the long-term effects of women-only learning environments on career advancement, retention, and leadership roles within Bitcoin and broader FOSS communities.

Comparing Mentorship Models: Further research into the effectiveness of different mentorship models, such as hierarchical versus peer mentoring, could provide insights into which approaches are most supportive for marginalized groups.

Role of Non-Technical Contributions: Research could investigate how non-technical roles, such as UX design, community management, and education, contribute to the overall success and sustainability of open-source projects.

Addressing Power Dynamics: Future studies should explore power dynamics within Bitcoin and other open-source communities, particularly around knowledge gatekeeping, influencer culture, funding information, and systemic discrimination. Understanding these dynamics is critical to developing effective strategies for creating more equitable and transparent environments.

Scalar School and similar initiatives invite researchers, educators, and developers to join these research endeavors. Collaborative efforts can help shape a more inclusive, fair, and innovative future for Bitcoin and FOSS development. Finding lasting solutions will require both academic inquiry and practical, community-driven action.

By investing in inclusion and diversity, we are not only shaping the next generation of developers but also contributing to a future where technology serves as a true vector of freedom, innovation, and human evolution. This is what makes the open-source world so extraordinary. Together, we can continue to build a fairer, safer, and brighter future for everyone.

References

Crowston, K., & Howison, J. (2005). The social structure of free and open source software development. First Monday, 10(2).

Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2012). Social coding in GitHub: Transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1277–1286). Association for Computing Machinery.

Faulkner, W. (2007). “Nuts and bolts and people”: Gender-troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 331–356.

Ford, D., Smith, J., Guo, P. J., & Parnin, C. (2016). Paradise unplugged: Identifying barriers for female participation on Stack Overflow. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 846–857). Association for Computing Machinery.

Fogel, K. (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. O’Reilly Media.

Golumbia, D. (2016). The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism. University of Minnesota Press.

Guo, P. J., & Reinecke, K. (2014). Demographic differences in how students navigate through MOOCs. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@scale Conference (pp. 21–30). Association for Computing Machinery.

Kelty, C. M. (2008). Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software and the Internet. Duke University Press.

Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: “Free” user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32(6), 923–943.

Nash, L. (2019). The Bitcoin Bible: Everything You Need To Know About Bitcoin (Cryptocurrency, Blockchain, Investing, Trading, Mining, Wallet, Trading & Crypto 101). Independently published.

Page, S. E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.

Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. O’Reilly Media.

Reagle, J. (2013). “Free as in sexist?”: Free culture and the gender gap. First Monday, 18(1).

Robles, G., Reina, L., & González-Barahona, J. M. (2016). Women in free/libre/open source software: The situation in the 2010s. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software and Systems Reuse (pp. 163–173). Springer.

Storey, M.-A. (2006). Theories, tools and research methods in program comprehension: Past, present and future. Software Quality Journal, 14(1), 35–57.

Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. MIT Press.

Vasilescu, B., Filkov, V., & Serebrenik, A. (2015). Perceptions of diversity on GitHub: A user survey. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (pp. 50–56). IEEE Press.