Varying Compensation Between Contributors

When you don't have the option of top-down, go bottom-up!

Gift
Image credit: Larry Koester

In an aftok, there is no central authority whatsoever — not even an authority empowered by democratic means. Fortunately, no central authority is required to make decisions about how to adjust compensation — each individual can "vote" directly by reallocating some of their own base share of revenue to other participants.

In a traditional corporation, employees agree implicitly to reallocation of this sort. Some people get paid highly and others poorly, even though they may all be spending similar fractions of their life working toward the good of the overall goal. Even for those who are relatively poorly paid for their time, this might be considered an acceptable outcome if the value generated by their coworkers is sufficient to provide them with an income adequate to their needs.

While such a result might be acceptable if such an agreement were entered into voluntarily, the truth of the matter is that significant discrepancies in compensation are the product of a dynamic where compensation information is kept secret in order to provide employers with greater leverage over their employees, and compensation reflects the bargaining skills of the employee more than it does the value that they bring. For a non-coercive organization, this is not an acceptable result.

In an aftok, it is up to the individual to decide exactly how much of the "surplus value" of their own time spent that they wish to allocate as rewards or thanks to their fellow contributors. Such allocation is called tithing.

How tithes work

Contributors can use the tithes interface to perform the following kinds of allocations:

For the health of the cryptocurrency network, all payments of amounts that would fall below a system-wide dust threshold are excluded from the resulting bill. This may result in a (very small) discount to the purchaser.

Next up: read about our collaborative decision-making tools.