Chain of necessity or chain of distribution


In a group effort there are people who contribute more than others - there are those who contribute time and those who contribute money. There are others who do one off help. We should reward all these people fairly.


Imagine a community has a community farm or kitchen. The profit - the food or produce should be distributed fairly.

Everyone who contributes should receive a reward for their efforts. The people who do the majority of the work should receive the lion's share. The manual labourers in the kitchen or farm should receive the most.

We need some way to vote on the distribution of gains. A project can only succeed if it has capital owners and workers. They are both necessary for success. But the workers do more of the work.

This is like a proportional vote except we vote on percentages for returns.

I don't think Blockchain or contracts solves this problem.


(suppress notifications) (Optional) Please, log in.

I value the noncreative work more than creative work. Without the noncreative work we wouldn't have water, food or electronics.

At least without creatives we would still have food and water.

Creative work is easier than hard labour.

    :  -- 
    : Mindey
    :  -- 


One can conceive of two rough categories of work, creative work and noncreative, repetitive labor. Creative work results in the design of something new. Once created, that new artefact can be reused by others. Noncreative, repetitive labor consists of repeating a task in order to achieve some goal that is useful, but does not result in any new ideas, technologies, service or art form. Both are needed in order for present day society to operate. Creative work is valued more by our culture, reflected in patents, trade secrets and competitive advantages. Unicorns are created based on a creative new idea, while factory worker receives a small wage for their repeating the same task over and over. What is the value of new ideas compared to repetitive tasks? Perhaps intelligent robots will one day eliminate most forms of human labor, and as automation increases, we are approaching that limit. How do we rethink our system of rewards to be a fair society and not one of even greater inequality? It would seem to me that there needs to be a universal basic income that guarantees a minimum level of human wellbeing, and creatives can be rewarded, but not excessively as we have proven over and over again that the wealthy lack the emotional maturity to live within planetary boundaries. For example, the entire notion of luxury goods, that are high carbon footprint by design and designed to appeal to the consumerist elite does nothing more than reinforce inequality and degrade our ecosystems. People should be rewarded for their creativity but also for giving their time doing noncreative work to benefit others. After all, time is the most precious commodity of all, and if we use part of it to do a necessary but unfulfilling task, we deserve to be recognized for giving away a part of our life....which is what we do when we work at an unfulfilling job that just pays the bills.

I wonder if the formula for voting on this thing is an average of everybody's percentages.

Someone says 40% another person says 60% should go to the money contributors. The average is 50%.

Repeat for each contributor.

Perhaps, bc can be part of a solution. It can serve as an escrow service, regulated by contract. The tokens are not released till everyone is in agreement. It's just an impartial arbitrator. Exactly how it's services are used is a different subject, but it def would take humans and additional structure outside. I agree that by itself bc is not the solution, but it can be a part of solution. A set of typical solutions can be available to communities to follow.