Money is useful for coordination. It does not capture every benefit, burden, or long-term contribution. Software, knowledge, and designs make this tension visible: access can spread while maintenance still needs resources.
Separate the jobs
Attribution recognizes work. Compensation pays for effort or results under an agreement. Resource allocation decides how limited capacity is used. Trust informs a commitment. Governance authority concerns a decision.
One number should not quietly do all of these jobs.
The hypothesis
Additional ways to preserve contribution and its context may help support valuable work that ordinary payment flows overlook. These mechanisms would complement real product economics during initial experiments.
We do not have a replacement for money. More recognition does not create unlimited materials, energy, time, or income.
Pressure needs careful categories
Pressure has been used for resource use, costs, burdens, and harm. It is not necessarily punishment or moral judgment. Agreed compensation and avoidable harm must remain distinguishable.
An earlier payout idea exchanged contribution standing for withdrawals. That could disadvantage people who need income most. It remains a historical proposal, not a current public payout offer.
A useful next test
For a small production workflow, document who contributes, who gets paid, what resources are consumed, and what burdens are passed elsewhere. Compare ordinary attribution with a richer contribution record.
Keep compensation under agreed terms. Investigate whether the additional record helps before using it to distribute money or authority. Never make human worth, essential rights, or basic dignity dependent on a score.
Status and revision
This is a concept note, not a reported experiment result. Maintained by the WebTree project team, led by Max Levitskiy. Initial public synthesis: 5 September 2026. Future revisions should state what changed and why.