Open Source Project Alist Collapses Due to Lack of Contributors

On June 12, Mirror Tang, CEO of ZeroBase and Salus, responded to the ongoing controversy surrounding the decline and secret sale of the open-source project Alist. This reaction came after a viral post by DIYgod, an AI open-source author of Folo and RSSHub, who expressed concerns about the unhealthy dynamics within the open-source ecosystem. On June 11, DIYgod described the collapse of Alist as “a tragedy” for all stakeholders. Tang's comments added a fresh perspective, highlighting deeper structural flaws and user behavior trends within open-source projects.

Open-source projects often rely on strong community support and balanced contributions. Alist, once boasting over 50,000 GitHub stars, failed to attract enough contributors. DIYgod noted that despite its high visibility, Alist had only around 100 contributors in total. The second-highest non-robot contributor made just 8% of the author’s contributions. The project’s creator stopped regular submissions after early 2024, and since then, no new maintainers have stepped forward. Tang described this stagnation as a clear sign of structural weakness. The author ultimately sold the project secretly to a gray production team, according to Tang, who said this outcome represented “already a good ending” under the circumstances.

Mirror Tang criticized a recurring issue in many open-source projects—the imbalance between user expectations and actual support. Tang said many projects fail because they aim “to take advantage of others” instead of solving common problems. He added that platforms offering free services tend to attract users who “refuse to pay,” making sustainable development nearly impossible. DIYgod emphasized similar concerns, stating that many users do not recognize the pain and long-term effort behind open-source work. DIYgod noted, “They only see that there is one less project that can be used for free.” This short-term mindset leads to a lack of community backing when the project requires active help or financial support.

RSSHub, another open-source project maintained by DIYgod, serves as a contrast to Alist. Despite having fewer stars, RSSHub benefits from a broader contributor base. According to DIYgod, it has nearly ten times more contributors than Alist. This distributed development structure allowed RSSHub to maintain and even increase efficiency over time. The decline in Alist’s development efficiency began over 18 months ago, as noted by DIYgod. The failure to attract co-maintainers left the project dependent on a single author. The lack of foresight in building a healthy contributor model played a major role in its collapse. Forked versions such as blist and xlist have emerged since Alist’s decline. However, DIYgod questioned their credibility, noting that the same forkers “didn’t submit a line of code” when Alist was salvageable. These forks may lack long-term sustainability if driven only by popularity and not by commitment.

The controversy highlights key questions about the sustainability of open-source projects. Both Mirror Tang and DIYgod urged deeper reflection on how to avoid cheap and ugly monetization routes. Tang’s message pointed to the “fate of the gray open-source ecosystem,” suggesting a systemic problem beyond a single project. DIYgod proposed that users should evaluate all the open-source tools they use. Users should look for ways to contribute, even through simple gestures like gratitude. These small actions can motivate developers and help delay the shutdown of projects. Monetary support, structured contribution models, and public awareness appear essential to avoid future tragedies. Without these, many projects may follow Alist’s path despite initial success.

The Alist incident offers a critical lens into the fragile structure of many open-source projects. While platforms like RSSHub demonstrate that strong contributor bases can sustain growth, Alist’s fall reflects a cautionary tale. The discussions on June 11 and 12 reignited a broader conversation on how developers and users must reshape their roles. Contributions, recognition, and accountability will define whether open-source projects thrive or perish. The open-source community stands at a crossroads. Balancing ideals with practical support will determine the path forward.