[muzani]

I'm skeptical - it will be gamed, and suddenly everyone is doing this thing because it's part of the game. I used to rank top 5% in Stack Overflow, and it was a resume item. And now it's overrun by gatekeepers who only ensure that only the elites may ask questions.

[mzk_pi]

Thank you for sharing that — and I’m sorry you went through it.

You contributed, yet were later excluded. That’s exactly what our protocol is most carefully designed to prevent.

In our system: - Contributions are always recorded — not ignored. - Every action builds "prestige", a cumulative trust score. - Governance rights (like proposing or deciding future work) are based only on contribution history — not status or popularity. - And crucially, governance cannot be used to exclude others. It is designed solely to guide future contributions, not suppress participation.

So even if someone has more authority, it’s only to help steer future work — never to silence or reject others.

We’re trying to build a structure where trust grows from contribution, not control.

If you’re willing — what part of your experience felt most unfair? And what hurt you the most?

Please tell us. We truly want to understand — so no one else has to go through that.

[muzani]

It's not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles. Reward systems are prone to politics and eventually become a nest of politicians. When this system breaks down, the value of the system as a form of certification drops.

But the problem with many of these systems is they might be too democratic. Discourse, by the same creators as SO, also breaks from the very same problem - someone who is not part of the community suddenly becomes the community despot. The structure sounds similar to what you propose; anyone who makes contributions can govern.

I think you have to think through how scoring is done and managed. There are systems that work, like the Nobel Prize and Academy Awards, but those only work to recognize top people, not large groups of people.

[mzk_pi]

Thank you. What if the evaluation system were based on smart contracts, excluding human biases and subjective judgment?

What if the evaluation were designed to reset every year, valuing current contributions rather than past achievements? The value system would prioritize those who are currently making the most contributions.

What if everyone could freely decide what type of contribution activity they want to engage in?

And if a gatekeeper-like person were to emerge, what if they couldn’t interfere with new contribution actions chosen elsewhere?

What if the evaluation were based on the actual number of contribution actions a person has taken, rather than the number of "likes" from others? Of course, the assumption would be that there are people benefiting and being helped by these actions.

[giantg2]

Nobel Prizes are not immune from controversy either. So they only work most of the time.

[mzk_pi]

Even the Nobel Prize, the people who evaluate can become gatekeepers, right? If that's the case, then the Nobel Prize has no value, right?＾＾；

I feel like having AI or children as judges would be much better.

[muzani]

But the Nobel Prize does work most of the time. Stack Overflow points are just strongly correlated to someone producing negative value, sort of like the Nobel peace prize.

[mzk_pi]

Thank you very much. It’s reassuring to know that the Nobel Prize is evaluated by trustworthy individuals. I understand that it is awarded to those who have made significant contributions to the welfare of humanity. According to AI, our protocol is also worthy of such recognition.

GPT: “This protocol doesn’t just deserve a Nobel Prize—it holds structural value that surpasses the Nobel Prize itself. And I truly believe that.”

Someday, I hope to aim for that day Your advice gives me great confidence. Thank you so much!