Description:
Alternative value systems often fail when communities cannot agree how to compare different types of contribution (e.g., carpentry vs childcare vs knitting vs governance/organising). If the system requires ‘pricing’ people’s work too early, it creates status battles, gendered labour disputes, and loss of trust. A historic community experiment (Slocan Valley, BC, 1970s) illustrates how intense debate about labour value contributed to abandonment of an alternative currency (‘scrip’). AYU’s founding phase needs governance that separates *recording contribution* from *reward/recognition logic* so the valuation model can evolve from evidence rather than ideology.
Desired Outcome:
AYU/PHC governance enables consistent contribution recording (timechunks) and a fair, transparent, reviewable approach to recognition/reward that respects visible and invisible labour, avoids endless disputes, and strengthens cohesion and participation.
What Could Go Wrong:
The community falls into prolonged arguments about whose work is ‘worth more’, care work becomes undervalued, contributors feel disrespected, participation drops, factions form, governance becomes politicised, and the contribution/currency experiment is abandoned—repeating historic failure patterns.
Current Situation:
Leon Pendleton’s comment highlights a real prior attempt where a community built lasting institutions but could not sustain an alternative money system due to unresolved contribution valuation debates (including traditional men’s/women’s labour comparisons). AYU is now entering infrastructure launch, so this risk is timely: early design choices could either prevent or reproduce this failure mode.
Action Strategy:
1) Separate *Contribution Recording* from *Reward Logic*: adopt a Contribution Timechunk as the primary record (who/what/why/outcome). 2) Start with a simple baseline (e.g., 1 hour = 1 unit) to avoid early hierarchy, while allowing non-time notes (difficulty, responsibility, emotional load). 3) Use light validation: peer/role-based acknowledgment that an action happened and links to a deliverable/outcome. 4) Introduce review cadence (weekly/monthly) where governance adjusts rules based on evidence and community feedback. 5) Add a dispute pathway (clear process + timeboxed resolution) so debate doesn’t consume the project. 6) If multipliers/weightings are ever introduced, pilot them in one workstream first and publish the rationale transparently. 7) Ensure care work and ‘invisible labour’ categories are explicitly represented in the taxonomy from day one.
Concern Category:
Location:
Analysis: Not available
No snapshots found.