Does OpenAI keep its promises to the developer community?

It’s the last day of Q1 (3/31/2024) and I have not heard details on revenue share for the GPT store.

No plan survives intact, but I feel OpenAI should communicate changes or delays.

To all of the developers of GPTs, I’m reaching out to bring attention to this and perhaps get an update from OpenAI? I’m curious to hear how others in the developer community are feeling about the lack of updates or if you’ve heard anything from OpenAI directly.

The link to OpenAI’s blog post is still live as of the time of this post.

“In Q1 we will launch a GPT builder revenue program”



This is the latest update from OpenAI about the revenue sharing program:

1 Like

Hi @vb,

I’m glad that they are testing “usage-based GPT earnings” but that doesn’t match with “launching a GPT builder revenue program in Q1”.

They did not provide another date now that Q1 has passed. To date, I don’t think they are keeping their promises to the developer community.

In my opinion they could be much more transparent (especially with a revenue share) to the benefit of both OpenAI, the GPT store and the developer community.

1 Like

It precisely does match.

Your complaint is 100% without merit.

1 Like

There was an update shortly after the whole OpenAI board of directors shake-up that the launch of the store itself needed to be postponed and now we got this statement on social media that the initial phase of the rollout has started.

I get why anybody could ask for a more straightforward communications style. But it’s only a broken promise if I want to see it that way and not because large scale projects may be postponed due to their complexity or unforeseen roadblocks.

100% without merit

is a strong statement. To me testing != launching but I understand you may have another view on that.

I really don’t want to see it as a broken promise. I love and respect OpenAI and it’s mission, I’ve also really enjoyed working with their APIs. As a developer I understand projects going long, I just think as stakeholders they should share with us the information they have.

Completely feel you on the point that high expectations sometimes end in disappointment. We put in time and effort and all you get in return is a tweet.

On the other hand, looking back at all the projects I was tasked to run I am convinced that it’s completely justified for me to come here several times a day and put time and effort into this community. Because the brand is definitely trustworthy enough.


100% without merit was uncalled for…

The comment about Open AI not respecting its promise of having monetized GPT store in Q1 was not kept.

An apology from Open AI would have been respectful.

Let’s communicate in friendly terms, as much as possible.


I guess my response is more to the whinging and sense of entitlement on display.

  1. OpenAI didn’t make any “promises” to you. They announced future plans—extremely nebulous plans with zero details—at a developer conference.
  2. Nobody owes you anything in terms of updates. It’ll launch if and when it launches. The GPT store itself was two months late in launching.
  3. I haven’t seen more than a handful of GPTs that really add anything of value, so I’m not entirely sure who these developers are who are expecting some sort of windfall from monetization.

It’s not just about transparency, I believe it’s not only OpenAI and its developers (covering both APIs and GPTs, as they are integral to their plans), but also members of this forum, and even beyond, could benefit from here on this forum.

1 Like

And where are we all moving in terms of monetization of add-ons? - from my point of view, it is necessary to make it possible to create so-called quickly deployable web-compatible mobile applications based on add-ons. This would be a good step to be able to create a micro application store based on GPTS
And already there, part of the commission can be received in the form of donations or payments to developers, depending on the declared monetization model of the add-on, I would send only the version with donations to the developer - for now (there are a lot of reasons for this)
And there are not enough right tools to limit the hallucination of the model within the framework of the superstructure that the creators want to commercialize.