This thread and modders themselves are literally only places I've seen that supports this idea* in its' current form.
* And by "idea" I don't mean paid mods, but this idiotic 0 support, 0 warranty, 0 guarantees, 0 anything system.
The problem is, people are using the current implementation of the idea to attack the idea itself.
The conversations are basically going like this:
"Paid mods will ruin modding for everyone!" -> How? -> "Well, in this specific case, the modder only gets 25% of the cut." -> Yes that revenue cut sucks - but that's this specific implementation which can be fixed and corrected, but paid mods in general is still an idea worth experimenting with -> "No, because there's no support! No refund if it breaks! No decent review system!" -> Again, these are implementation problems that can be fixed over time -> "No, because <another implementation complaint>!"
Let's not mix up a bad implementation with a (potentially) good idea. Implementations can be fixed, bad ideas cannot. People are claiming the idea is bad, and using the bad implementation as "proof".
Nobody in this thread is approving of "this idiotic 0 support, 0 warranty, 0 guarantees, 0 anything system" as you are accusing us. We're saying the idea might be good, and it's worth trying out. A proper trial will take several years. Calling a trial a failure after 3 days is shortsighted.
The first implementation of any idea - good or bad - is almost always low quality (look at the pre-iPod mp3 players, for example). People are (correctly) bashing the poor implementation as a way to try and (incorrectly) abort the idea mid-birth.
If the implementation is bad, create a protest with a list of the N things that Valve needs to fix. But using a bad implementation as an excuse to shoot down an idea you don't like is politician-level dishonesty.
I don't play many mods. I've played like three in the past five years. I don't make mods. I'm a neutral party looking at this, removed from most emotional investment. I'm not claiming Valve is benevolent. After I've already come to my own opinion and conclusions, I read this reddit post by the modder pulling out and I get the strong impression that he's making overly emotional decisions. After making firm commitments in one direction, when he sees public opinion going in a different direction, jumps ship and attacks the side he just left, and then starts making demands without considering the ramifications of the demands he's making! Do you realize he's demanding that Valve remove his mod not just so people can't buy it, but that he's demanding that they remove his mod from people who have already paid for it?
Even his thread title is a plea to emotions. "The experiment has failed" the title shouts. Oh really? After 24 hours? That's the crappiest experiment I've ever heard. Good thing he's not actually the one running the experiment. It's pretty funny, because he's actually one of the test subjects - and he's tapping on the glass where the doctors are behind and saying, "Hey doc, your experiment has failed!" - when the experiment is only 24 hours into a year long experiment.
Here's his actual statement, in his own words: "[Valve's lawyer states] that they will make the file visible only to currently paid users. I am beside myself with anger right now as they try to tell me what I can do with my own content." (bold emphasis is his own emphasis).
He's angry that Valve honors the purchase agreement he and Valve both made with customers, and he demands that Valve violates the agreement by undoing the purchases already made.
That's like Kellogg cereal demanding that Walmart kick down doors and take back boxes of Corn Flakes because Kellogg decided not to sell any more corn flakes. Kellogg can demand Walmart remove existing inventory from their shelves, but they cannot demand Walmart remove already-purchased cereal from consumer's homes. This modder, however, is "beside himself with anger" that Valve will only remove the mod from the shelves, and won't remove already purchased copies from existing customers. I definitely don't agree with his demands.
On the other side, I then read this post by the author of Nexus Mods, It is a well-thought out, well-reasoned explanation about why Nexus accepts donations through Valve, from modders who want to support Nexus Mods. It quotes actual emails, sets up the actual events, and provides insight into his actual view. Whether you agree with that view or not, it's clearly stated and sane. His mind is actually functioning properly.
People can hold different views. And some people are rationally opposed to this. But most of the internet response is "out of my mind/besides myself with anger/can't think straight" responses. Alot of the response seems to be people willing giving up rationality to continue enjoying an 'emotional high' feeling of outrage. Some people get pleasure from outrage, and so don't listen to reasonable statements.
Being worried is understandable. Being angry is natural (but not necessarily correct or good). Holding different views is important. But the amount of people willingly giving up rational thought is scary - in this, and many other controversies. It's not that people aren't thinking for themselves - it's that they are willingly choosing not to comprehend other people's thoughts in other to feed the pleasurable feeling that comes from indignation and outrage.
Some people have very valid concerns and are in their right mind and rational about it. Most are implementation concerns, but some have very legitimate concerns with the core idea itself. That's good! We need alternative views - we need Ian Malcolm reminders. But the real debate and rational discussion is getting buried under the screamfest that is internet outrage for the sake of outrage.
When that happens, unless people calm down and talk things through, the companies are likely to just press ahead doing potential damage, or cancel the experiment just because of the backlash instead of learning why it's not a good idea. For either side, a mob-pressure-induced decision is not the best long-term method to solving this debate.