🧾 The User Consent Compensation Model

A lightweight contract between builder and user

In many decentralized communities, compensation often feels like a guessing game. Builders don’t always know what their work is worth, and users aren’t always invited to say what it’s worth to them. The User Consent Compensation Model is a new approach we’re experimenting with — one that tries to bring clarity, fairness, and flexibility to how value gets rewarded.

Instead of waiting for a grant or applying for approval from a centralized treasury, the builder makes the first move. They create a prototype or minimum viable product (MVP) aimed at solving a specific problem for a real user or community node. Then, they ask for consent to a compensation proposal.

🛠 How It Works

Present the Work
The builder presents a working prototype (not just an idea) and explains what it does, who it’s for, and how much they’re asking in return.
Negotiate Terms with Users
The proposal is shared with a user or group of users — not a boss or fund manager, but a peer or funding party who sees the value and agrees to test it. Importantly, these users give prior consent to a compensation amount, based on a shared understanding of what’s being delivered.
Use the Product
Over a set period of time, users try the product in a real-world scenario. Only those who actually use the tool are invited to evaluate it.
Make a Decision by Consent
At the end of the trial, the user group evaluates whether the builder met the agreed-upon value. Using a Sociocracy 3.0-style consent decision-making process, they decide whether to release the proposed payment — or suggest modifications, partial payment, or follow-up work.

💡 Why Try This?

Aligns incentives between builders and users.
Encourages builders to start with a solution, not a sales pitch.
Shifts power away from centralized funding and toward direct relationships.
Brings human consent and conversation into the compensation loop.

🛑 What Could Go Wrong?

Builders carry delivery risk if users walk away or reject the value.
Evaluation could be biased or inconsistent unless guardrails (like rubrics or escrow) are in place.
Participation must happen in a high-trust context — this isn’t designed for anonymous bounties.

🧪 Try It This Way

Build a simple prototype — a tool, guide, workflow, etc.
Identify a real user or peer who might benefit.
Propose a compensation amount and invite them to consent to a test.
After use, hold a brief consent-based check-in: Did it solve the problem? Was the value there? Should the funds be released?
Reflect together on how to improve the product — or the model itself.

This model isn’t about extracting value — it’s about meeting real needs in real time. It’s not a bounty. It’s not a grant. It’s a collaborative contract, grounded in mutual respect and tested through shared experience.

We’re curious to see how it feels. If you try it — or tweak it — let us know. After all, compensation is not just a transaction. It’s part of the culture we’re building.