Releases: contribution-protocol/contribution-protocol-project
Administration and Value Q&A (2025-10-08)
Q.
Isn’t the determination of value ultimately decided by the discretion of the administrators?
A.
The term “value” has two distinct meanings here.
One refers to whether an action qualifies for issuance (whether it has value), and the other refers to the amount issued (the magnitude of value).
First, whether an action qualifies for issuance is not based on personal preference or relationships but on recorded actions and their contribution to the system.
The criterion is whether the system actually operated or was sustained through that action.
Administrators merely verify the state of the system and act as intermediaries for its response; they do not determine value themselves.
Second, the amount issued varies according to the liquidity of the system and the balance of reserved funds.
When resources are abundant, distribution expands; when resources are limited, issuance is naturally suppressed.
These fluctuations are structural and not determined by individual discretion—they function to preserve systemic balance.
Therefore, in both senses, value is not determined by the administrators’ will.
It emerges autonomously, as the system responds to the circulation of actions and resources.
In practice, however, the administrators’ understanding and technical judgment play an important role.
For example, if in a given month someone made a technically advanced proposal or critical maintenance decision —
even if that contribution took the form of a single email — it would still count as “maintenance” if it structurally supported the system.
The criterion is not the amount of work performed, but how many times one’s actions have contributed to the stability and continuity of the system.
Sustained engagement and frequency of contribution matter more than one-time outcomes.
The number of meaningful actions determines whether issuance occurs and at what level.
Administrators may appear to hold power because, in recent periods, they have made the highest number of contributions to the system and thus hold greater prestige.
Authority within the system is not derived from position but from the density of accumulated trust.
Those who have continuously acted in resonance with the system naturally acquire greater decision-making influence.
For this reason, administrative judgment is not arbitrary; it is a form of intellectual maintenance, grounded in structural and technical understanding rather than emotion.
Administrators must also be capable of recognizing contributors’ actions, translating them into concrete contribution records, and registering them appropriately in the system.
Education and training of administrative members are therefore essential to maintaining institutional integrity.
The fundamental criterion remains whether an action contributes to the community or to others.
If an action serves only the actor’s personal benefit, it is not recognized as a contribution.
The beneficiary may be the contributor themselves or external parties, but the intention must be directed toward others.
For example, in the agricultural domain, it often takes months of volunteer labor before one can sell or share produce at low cost for the benefit of local residents.
In such cases, “results” are not measured by the act of selling or harvesting itself but by the continuity of effort and engagement leading up to it.
This protocol recognizes and evaluates that process as genuine contribution.
Finally, specific implementation standards and issuance rules may be adjusted or revised within each community’s own PDCA cycle.
The principles above serve as the foundational guidelines of this protocol.
Judgment Mechanism Q&A (2025-09-04)
- Q1. Who decides whether an action qualifies for token issuance?
- Q2. Which actions are included in the system?
- Q3. Are utility tokens a reward for labor?
- Q4. Doesn’t the operation (administration) hold authority?
Q1. Who decides whether an action qualifies for token issuance?
Whether it qualifies for issuance is automatically determined by the system.
Which actions are included in the system is agreed upon by the collective will of the citizens,
and daily operations are fluidly carried out by those who act the most.
Q2. Which actions are included in the system?
Actions included in the system are those that belong to a registered function, contribute to others,
and are recorded under a system that is active.
However, contribution to others does not mean based on the recipient’s feelings or evaluations,
but is established when the action is recorded in a way that serves others’ use
or supports the activities of the region in a sound manner.
For actions where the contribution to the region is not clear,
the judgment is made by the collective will of the citizens,
according to the land, climate, values, and times.
Q3. Are utility tokens a reward for labor?
Utility tokens are not a reward.
They are a record that preserves the fact that a person’s actions contributed to the system,
and they are proof of existence.
In other words, they are a certificate issued by the system stating:
“Your actions have indeed created value for the region,
and you are undoubtedly a valuable being.”
At the same time, they are also units that can be used as local currency.
This proof does not remain merely as a record but circulates as “currency”
that can actually be exchanged and used within the region,
positioned as part of the mechanism that supports people’s lives.
Q4. Doesn’t the operation (administration) hold authority?
In this protocol, it is not people but the system that makes judgments,
and the operation has no adjudicating authority.
Whether an action qualifies for token issuance is automatically judged by the system,
and the role of the operation is only to prepare the environment so the system functions correctly.
At first glance, it may seem that the operation has influence,
but this is because the person who has acted the most in that period, taken responsibility,
and accumulated prestige naturally stands at the center.
However, that position is always fluid, and it is the system, not people, that judges.
Therefore, if asked, “Who is considered great?” the answer is:
“The people who care for the region and have acted the most for it,”
but even they cannot judge the contributions of others.
Note
The more people continue to act without compensation, caring for the region and carrying prayers,
the more they are bearing its difficulties, loneliness, and sorrow.
If they lose the prayer of “I wish the future of this region to be like this”
and their number of actions for the region decreases,
their prestige will inevitably decline, and their right of involvement will fade.
This too is transparently visible within the records and the collective will.
Without them, the invisible premise of this protocol, “system activation,” becomes zero.
The system is structurally designed to be hard to collapse,
but if system activation ceases, it will disappear.
That signifies that the people belonging to this community
have lost hope in the future of their region.
Institutional Positioning Q&A (2025-09-02)
Institutional Positioning Q&A (2025-09-02)
- Q1. How is employment positioned?
- Q2. Is this system a local currency?
- Q3. What are the differences from conventional local currencies?
Q1. How is employment positioned?
In this system, wage labor is in principle outside the scope.
When subsidies from municipalities or private organizations apply and temporary employment is established with existing currency, it is not included in this framework.
What is targeted are activities that receive no subsidies or are evaluated at an unreasonably low rate compared to the market.
Typical examples include farm management, organizational operations, management, coaching, knowledge transfer, education, system development/maintenance/provision, sales, strategic consulting, educational material creation, transcription, and accounting.
Therefore, wage labor is not the core of the system. The essence is to make visible and fairly evaluate those activities that are not covered by employment or subsidies.
In practice, it is operated in small local communities, where participants connect through “contribution” and “joy,” and it is carried out with a sense similar to play. It is similar to children giving their grandparents or parents a “massage coupon” or “help coupon.”
Q2. Is this system a local currency?
Formally, it can be called a "local currency issuance system."
However, unlike traditional models, the issuer is not local governments or affiliated organizations but the citizens themselves, and issuance does not depend on advance payments in existing currency.
This system started with the idea of creating a new economic system that is not capitalism, and thus its starting point is fundamentally different from traditional local currencies.
Q3. What are the differences from conventional local currencies?
Conventional local currencies are typically issued by municipalities or related organizations, with a large amount of initial capital invested at the outset.
Participants generally receive them by prepaying in existing currency, and as a result, the structure remains an extension of the capitalist monetary system.
In contrast, in this system, the issuers are the citizens themselves, and no prepayment is required.
Currency issuance is triggered directly by recording acts of contribution.
A reserve fund is necessary, but it can be started with a very small amount.
As each phase progresses, the capital base grows, but since the currency is burned after a predetermined period (e.g., six months), any reserve funds not returned are rolled over into the next capital base.
In addition, the amount of issuance fluctuates depending on the remaining reserves: if the reserve balance is small, the issued amount is reduced.
Therefore, the illusion that large reserves must always be prepared is unnecessary.
Participants do not originally expect monetary rewards for their contributions.
If they seek rewards, the existing market is sufficient — there is no reason to choose this system for that purpose.
Conclusion
This system is not something unknown, but a framework that can be safely chosen, aiming to lead to people’s peace of mind.
Our wish is not to deny capitalism, but to provide an additional complementary alternative outside it.