Different Forms of Compensation in Decentralized Work

💸 Different Forms of Compensation in Decentralized Work

In a decentralized workplace, how we get paid can look very different from the familiar weekly paycheck or hourly rate. As more communities experiment with open collaboration, new models for compensation are emerging — and each has tradeoffs.

Some are about speed and simplicity. Others aim to be more human, relational, or reflective of impact. Below are a few models we’ve explored, including the “Happy Money” story we’re trying this week — a model rooted in generosity and emotional honesty.

🪙 1. The Gig or Bounty Model

This model is straightforward: a task has a posted price, you complete it, you get paid. Platforms like Dwork or Ondomio use this format.

Why it works:

You know what you’re getting into.
It’s fast and clean — no debates or surprises.

Limitations:

It can feel transactional, like gig work.
It’s hard to account for nuance, emergence, or deep collaboration.

🐝 2. The Swarm Model

In this approach, the group completes a body of work first, and only afterward decides how to divide the available funds. It’s often informal and based on discussion or perceived contribution.

Why it works:

It’s flexible and adapts to real effort.
Encourages shared ownership and trust.

Limitations:

Ambiguity: who decides what’s fair?
Often informal and easy to dominate or overlook people.

😊 3. The “Happy Money” Story

Inspired by conversations about generosity and emotional intelligence, this method invites people to give and receive compensation with intention. Participants share how they feel about what they’re offering or accepting. It’s not just about the money — it’s about the energy.

Why it works:

Honors the human side of contribution.
Builds community trust and connection.

Limitations:

Requires vulnerability and time.
Not everyone is comfortable with the ambiguity.

📝 4. The Proposal-Based Model

Used by communities like Gimbalabs and Little Fish, this model starts with a proposal. You scope your work, request funding, and get paid as you deliver.

Why it works:

Encourages planning and accountability.
Great for multi-week or complex projects.

Limitations:

Slower to start.
Adds administrative friction.

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 5. Fractal Democracy (or Contribution Ranking)

In this system, contributors meet in small groups and rank each other’s weekly contributions. Compensation is distributed based on peer evaluation. Think of it as a recurring community “retrospective with rewards.”

Why it works:

Peer recognition.
Encourages regular reflection and participation.

Limitations:

Rankings can feel subjective.
Needs consistent attendance and mutual trust.

⏱ 6. Traditional Time-for-Money

Simple and familiar: you work a set number of hours and get paid a pre-negotiated rate.

Why it works:

Easy to understand and plan around.
Good for stable, repeatable tasks.

Limitations:

Doesn’t always reflect real value.
Can feel mechanical or extractive.

👏 7. Give It Away

A fractal distribution model where everyone decides independently how to distribute funds for that period, and the collective result is the sum of all individual distributions.

How to play:

every week everyone gets shares of the pot
- Evenly distributed or a reputation weighted model (becomes like Potlatch) or whatever makes sense. Start with even distribution.
- This could be direct shares of the treasury in ADA or tokens to be redeemed later.
  - A fun system could be to use “respect” tokens or “love” tokens as the shares, or just points people can distribute to keep it simple.
People engage in a round of sharing to recognize what they saw this period to help surface contributions and value. Harvesters can have a special role here, but anyone can contribute.
No one can keep their shares, they must give them away.
People decide who to give their shares to based on their own criteria - did this person do a lot? Help them personally? Have a need for more resources? Make them laugh? Any reasons at all are okay here to allow for emergence.
People who receive shares then exchange them for their share of the weekly treasury allotment.
Allotment is transparent, but everyone should allot their shares privately before the results are revealed to avoid mutual back scratching or feelings of obligation because of how other’s distributed in this round.

Why it works:

Each person gets to decide how to split their part of the treasury so you get a representation of how to split the pot that is composed of diverse opinions.
It’s pretty low stress to give money to people based on what you think is fair.
Can take into account many different factors for deciding, no fixed rules.

Limitations:

Requires trust that the rest of the group will account for your own contributions since you have no control over how much you get
Can favor those with higher levels of interpersonal or influencing skills due to human bias for recognizing charisma. (maybe? This is just a conjecture and should be part of the experiment to measure)

Scaling it: This system can scale by having circles decide distributions between circles, then play the same game inside the circle once it is clear how much individual circles will receive for distribution from other circles. Start at the highest circle groupings and then work down to the smaller circles of trust if the organization is large.

💡 Looking Forward

Each of these models reflects different values: clarity, speed, trust, emergence, emotional intelligence. In a decentralized setting, there may not be one “right” way — but rather a menu of choices depending on the team, task, or moment.

This week, we’re experimenting with the Happy Money model. We’re curious what it feels like to give, receive, and decide compensation in conversation — rather than calculation.

Because how we pay each other isn’t just about fairness or function — it’s about what kind of culture we’re building together.