Government employee here. The best engineers, technologists (and people in general) I’ve had the opportunity to work with don’t give a shit about this sort of thin validation.
No-one worth their salt in public service is there for the accolades, or money. They do it because they give a shit about the community / country / culture / cause they’re part of.
There are exceptions for sure - big project are a proven way to jump your career back to private - but the people I most respect are thinking long term and working relentlessly towards that.
In that domain technology isn’t the endgame, it’s impacts and effects are. If you want to support that, help them build tools, grow communities and attract others with a similar drive. Or if they are moving back to private because they need the money that provides, actually interview them, even if what they can put on a CV is thin on detail.
Tech doesn’t need to revolve around capital, whether that’s social or financial.
I have no idea the current status but five years ago I knew an acquaintance who was building this: https://sourcecred.io which I think is pretty close to what you're talking about.
Usually on socials people link to their other socials (github, stackoverflow, twitter, personal blog) in their bios. A system could parse all of those and give some kind of summary. HR may already have such tools, but it'd be better if it was open and transparent.
This is truly a great idea! And it seems very feasible ＞▽＜
If this system existed, HR departments would definitely take advantage of it! It could increase the chances of discovering hidden talents who may not be good at sales.
Your idea is a rare combination of profitability and contribution, making it a valuable asset in today’s evaluation system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I don't really want prestige or widespread recognition. Small scale recognition and the respect of my peers seems adequate - just enough that if I'm looking for a job that someone in my network can hook me up with a reasonably decent one (~$120k).
Thank you.
Do you truly feel that your $120,000 job is helping people in the future — from the heart?
Isn’t it possible that your skills could actually save and support many more people?
Even when our own lives were financially stable, we couldn’t shake a lingering sense of emptiness.
We couldn’t clearly see who our work was truly supporting, or how it was improving anyone’s life.
Many client projects were focused on short-term profits, and at times, we found ourselves building systems that aggressively monetized even poor users, only to discard them when no longer profitable.
It never felt like we were contributing to genuine human well-being.
Don’t engineers carry skills — and intentions — that deserve far more recognition than they receive?
Have you ever asked yourself how your abilities should be used, and for what purpose?
We keep asking: if not capitalism, could there be a different kind of future?
Why do you need recognition for doing good and helping people? It should be enough that you do it and that it helps you support yourself (eg open source contribution that can also help you get a job). Ego shouldn't be that big of a focus.
Thank you for your insight. I agree, seeking recognition may indeed be seen as ego. We engage in volunteer work focused on social contribution and community welfare for people suffering from poverty. Instead of focusing on how to turn this into money, we believe that shifting the value starting point to contribution-based principles could reveal the compassion hidden in modern society and create new markets. Ultimately, I’ve realized that selfless acts of helping others lead to peace of mind. We are, after all, in pursuit of the meaning of life. However, we also acknowledged the fact that, without being appreciated, it’s difficult to sustain these efforts. As you said, it may be ego after all；；
Government employee here. The best engineers, technologists (and people in general) I’ve had the opportunity to work with don’t give a shit about this sort of thin validation.
No-one worth their salt in public service is there for the accolades, or money. They do it because they give a shit about the community / country / culture / cause they’re part of.
There are exceptions for sure - big project are a proven way to jump your career back to private - but the people I most respect are thinking long term and working relentlessly towards that.
In that domain technology isn’t the endgame, it’s impacts and effects are. If you want to support that, help them build tools, grow communities and attract others with a similar drive. Or if they are moving back to private because they need the money that provides, actually interview them, even if what they can put on a CV is thin on detail.
Tech doesn’t need to revolve around capital, whether that’s social or financial.
I have no idea the current status but five years ago I knew an acquaintance who was building this: https://sourcecred.io which I think is pretty close to what you're talking about.
Usually on socials people link to their other socials (github, stackoverflow, twitter, personal blog) in their bios. A system could parse all of those and give some kind of summary. HR may already have such tools, but it'd be better if it was open and transparent.
This is truly a great idea! And it seems very feasible ＞▽＜ If this system existed, HR departments would definitely take advantage of it! It could increase the chances of discovering hidden talents who may not be good at sales. Your idea is a rare combination of profitability and contribution, making it a valuable asset in today’s evaluation system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobel Prizes are not immune from controversy either. So they only work most of the time.
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.
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.
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!
I don't really want prestige or widespread recognition. Small scale recognition and the respect of my peers seems adequate - just enough that if I'm looking for a job that someone in my network can hook me up with a reasonably decent one (~$120k).
Thank you. Do you truly feel that your $120,000 job is helping people in the future — from the heart? Isn’t it possible that your skills could actually save and support many more people?
Even when our own lives were financially stable, we couldn’t shake a lingering sense of emptiness. We couldn’t clearly see who our work was truly supporting, or how it was improving anyone’s life. Many client projects were focused on short-term profits, and at times, we found ourselves building systems that aggressively monetized even poor users, only to discard them when no longer profitable. It never felt like we were contributing to genuine human well-being.
Don’t engineers carry skills — and intentions — that deserve far more recognition than they receive? Have you ever asked yourself how your abilities should be used, and for what purpose? We keep asking: if not capitalism, could there be a different kind of future?
Why do you need recognition for doing good and helping people? It should be enough that you do it and that it helps you support yourself (eg open source contribution that can also help you get a job). Ego shouldn't be that big of a focus.
Thank you for your insight. I agree, seeking recognition may indeed be seen as ego. We engage in volunteer work focused on social contribution and community welfare for people suffering from poverty. Instead of focusing on how to turn this into money, we believe that shifting the value starting point to contribution-based principles could reveal the compassion hidden in modern society and create new markets. Ultimately, I’ve realized that selfless acts of helping others lead to peace of mind. We are, after all, in pursuit of the meaning of life. However, we also acknowledged the fact that, without being appreciated, it’s difficult to sustain these efforts. As you said, it may be ego after all；；