Instead of Pack authors requiring a $X/month/maker billing, which are surcharges on the Coda user experience, it would be nice if say 10% of the Coda subscription fee went to Pack makers by their usage. This would enable more free packs, and thus more accessible usage, while still reciprocating payment back to value contributors.
I think this and other economic relationships should be considered including the edge case where pack makers could include code and other packs in new packs while compensating the original pack Maker with a percentage of the blended Pack’s revenues.
In both of these scenarios, your idea dynamically expands the market place for code in a no-code platform which in turn, expands the no-code experience. This would ostensibly make it very easy for Coda and other Pack alchemists to “purchase” the inclusion of capabilities into their own products and services without friction.
A simple offer process would allow Coda and other Pack makers to “bid” for feature components at arbitrary prices - I.e., … would you accept a 3% royalty for including this pack in our product?
Such a market place would also evolve to support offers to create code from a community of mercenary developers all working toward one goal - a hyper-no-code experience. I.e., … we need a function that does (x) for (y) royalty for a new Pack.