If you mostly follow AI tools through chatbot demos and trending posts, this matters more than it looks. The easy mistake is seeing a big GitHub star count, basically a public bookmark or like count for a software project, and assuming the creator must be doing fine financially. That shortcut can make you read hype as proof.
The OmniRoute snapshot is the useful reality check. On July 20, 2026, the repo showed 20.8k stars on GitHub, and the Docker Hub page showed 100K+ pulls. The public GitHub Sponsors page at sponsors/diegosouzapw showed 1 current sponsor. Stars are attention, not maintainer cash flow.
That does not prove the maintainer made no money. Public sponsor pages can miss private sponsors or support sent outside GitHub. But it does kill a lazy assumption: visibility, usage, and goodwill do not automatically turn into paid support. Don't judge an update by how many features it lists. Judge it by whether it changes your next decision.
So if you track open source projects, stop using stars as a shortcut for sustainability. Use them as a signal for attention, then ask a second question: is there any visible proof that users actually pay? Share this with someone who still reads popularity as income.