> 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/reconsidering-perpetual-ownership/the-design-objectives-for-an-alternative.md).

# The design objectives for an alternative

Contributionism should be evaluated against explicit objectives.

No organisational structure will maximise every desirable outcome simultaneously. The purpose of these objectives is to make trade-offs visible.

## **1. Consistent treatment of contributions**

Comparable contributions should be assessed under consistent rules.

Differences in compensation or authority should have an identifiable justification, such as differences in responsibility, value, duration or financial exposure.

Consistency does not require identical outcomes.

## **2. Recognition of historical value**

People should be able to receive rewards for work and investment whose benefits emerge later.

An organisation should not treat a contribution as irrelevant merely because its contributor has left.

## **3. Meaningful participation for recent contributors**

Historical rights should not indefinitely prevent current contributors from participating in the organisation’s financial success or direction.

The framework should make room for new contributions without depending entirely on voluntary concessions from established rights holders.

## **4. Protection of commitments**

Agreed rights should be clear and enforceable.

Current majorities should not be free to cancel historical claims, redefine contributions opportunistically or change distribution rules solely for their own benefit.

## **5. Financial sustainability**

Compensation arrangements must be compatible with the organisation’s resources and obligations.

An internal contribution valuation does not create cash. Promised rewards need to distinguish between guaranteed obligations and contingent participation in uncertain outcomes.

## **6. Effective governance**

The organisation must be capable of making informed, timely decisions.

Inclusive participation should be balanced with appropriate delegation, expertise and clear responsibility.

## **7. Proportionate administrative effort**

Recording and evaluating contributions should create enough benefit to justify the work involved.

A small organisation may need a simple process. A larger organisation may require formal records, independent review and specialised systems.

More measurement will not always mean better measurement.

## **8. Protection against exploitation**

The model should protect people with limited bargaining power, including contributors who:

* Hold few governance rights.
* Cannot afford deferred compensation.
* Perform difficult-to-measure work.
* Disagree with a dominant group.
* Leave before a distribution occurs.

Transparency alone is not sufficient protection.

## **9. Respect for external obligations**

Internal contributor agreement cannot justify harming others or overriding public obligations.

Organisations must respect applicable law, community interests and restrictions on public or charitable assets.

## **10. Capacity to learn**

Contributionism is a developing proposal. Organisations should be able to test arrangements, evaluate outcomes and improve future rules.

However, experimentation should not become a justification for retrospectively weakening existing commitments.

## **The central balance**

The framework seeks a balance between two risks:

> ***Historical contributors should not retain unlimited claims merely because they contributed earlier. Current contributors should not erase legitimate historical claims merely because they now control the organisation.***

A workable model will need to address both.