I don't understand how that is a problem, you want the person managing feature trade offs to be mindful of the budget. If the business itself is sound, delivering the most valuable features will increase the budget. So those two must be aligned.

I think the problem with an open ended contract is that you, the developer, don't have any significant incentive to create value for the client: as long as the client has budget and likes what you're doing, you are good. Once it ends, it doesn't matter if your code falls apart because you are not there to pick up the pieces.

So you have to drive your consultation business on reputation and honor only, not on the value of what you create, at least not directly. It is possible but not ideal.

My preferred way is to have skin in the game. Perhaps not so much that a single project's failure will kill your company, but enough to get rewarded for success in the mid- to long term.

thank you. it is interesting to see the difference in mindset about this. a few weeks ago i was talking with some people at a developer meetup, and they all insisted that doing anything but hourly billing would be stupid because why would you take that risk.

i didn't know what to say. i didn't think about reputation and honor. but next time i'll ask how they would establish trust with a new client that doesn't know them yet.

You definitely want the client to manage their own budget, but sometimes they are incapable. I would suggest to avoid those clients, even if they pay more.