> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.contributionism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.contributionism.io/foreword.md). # Foreword I first started thinking about the problems with equity and share ownership when I joined an early tech start-up. Eager to understand how shares were allocated, I didn’t shy away from asking questions and learning how different companies approached these decisions. In every case, and across a number of start-ups, I was left unsatisfied with the answers and outcomes. It never felt as though the goal was to truly reward people based on how well they had performed or the impact of their contributions to the company. Looking into the topic in more detail online, I found a promising book called *Slicing Pie* by Mike Moyer. This was the closest thing I could find to a resource that took equity allocation seriously. The book aimed to make it easier to calculate a fair distribution of equity while accommodating the inevitable changes in the scale and variety of contributions made by the people helping a company succeed. I told myself that if I started my own company, this would be the type of model I would turn to when deciding how to split equity more fairly with the people I worked with. A few years later, I found myself spending a lot of time in Web3 ecosystems. During this time, I learnt about the potential of funding processes, treasuries and circular economies within these emerging networks. As I analysed these systems and considered how they could function, I spent more time thinking about ways to compensate the contributors who help develop the networks and the applications and protocols deployed on them. It eventually became apparent that a system for recording, valuing and analysing people’s contributions could be highly valuable. The more accurately we could understand the contributions being made to these emerging Web3 ecosystems, the more easily we could compensate contributors through a funding process and align the incentives with making productive contributions. Web3 funding mechanisms can have overlapping problems with start-up businesses around delayed compensation. The full value of a contribution is commonly not known at the time the contribution is made. It can often take months or years to better understand the full impact of any particular contribution. It’s these experiences that led me to a realisation that the share structures being used in companies is flawed. Shares should not last in perpetuity. Early contributions are highly valuable to a business and can be pivotal to its success. However, those contributions do not reasonably justify granting someone governance authority and compensation forever. Why should the same share be passed down through generations, continuing to benefit people who never contributed to the company in the first place? While developing the initial model for Contributionism, I also began reading about different economic models. The two most notable ideas I learnt about were Henry George’s land value taxes and Silvio Gesell’s demurrage money. Improving our global economic systems would require comparing and better understanding these ideas to determine which were the most compelling to pursue first. Both land value taxes and demurrage money appeared to be more impactful and suitable options for adoption in the shorter term. Ideas shared in this resource, such as temporary compensation rights and temporary governance rights, would have greater potential impact if they were adopted in larger companies, where imbalances in compensation and governance can be more pronounced. The difficulty with this is that these companies would also be the hardest to change. It would be difficult to expect them to adopt an entirely new compensation and governance structure, even if they wanted to. Shareholders would not be incentivised to change their ownership structure to something that is financially against their interests. Pragmatically speaking, the ideas discussed in Contributionism are unlikely to be adopted in any meaningful sense in the short term. Other economic ideas, such as land value taxes and demurrage money, are therefore likely to be more suitable focal points for efforts to improve our economic systems in the short term. While these ideas are being explored, emerging technologies such as AI, robotics and automation will also be relevant to any considerations about adopting ideas from Contributionism. These technologies may reshape the landscape of labour and how people work together in organisations. Many economic systems that exist today could eventually be replaced by automated systems requiring very little human input. It is difficult to fully envisage what the world will look like in the coming decades, and these changes raise legitimate questions about the long-term impact of the ideas presented in Contributionism. For these reasons, it is more useful to view Contributionism as a contribution to understanding some of the flaws in our historical organisational structures. It explores how those flaws have contributed to economic problems, as well as inequalities and injustices experienced by some of the people who worked within these organisations - both those that still exist today and those that belong to the past. One day, my attention might return to the ideas that led to Contributionism. For now, however, there are plenty of other things to build of greater importance.
*George Lovegrove*