Different Forms of Compensation in Decentralized Work
💸 Different Forms of Compensation in Decentralized Work
Section titled “💸 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
Section titled “🪙 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
Section titled “🐝 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
Section titled “😊 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
Section titled “📝 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)
Section titled “🧑🤝🧑 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
Section titled “⏱ 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.
💡 Looking Forward
Section titled “💡 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.