Why do we need a contribution accounting system?

First published on 3 January 2014 and last modified on 26 August 2026

........................................................

NOTE: Before 2017 Sensorica used the expression ''value accounting system''. The current expression in use is ''contribution accounting system''. See more on the OVN wiki. The origin of this modification is a redefinition of value, inspired by Tibi's essay ''Scale of social structures''.

.........................................................

With the advent of the Internet and the development of new digital technologies, the economy is following a trend of decentralized globalization. The most innovative environments are open source communities, while peer production is on the rise. That is the crowd that innovates and produces. But the crowd is organized in loose networks, it is geographically dispersed, and contributions to projects follow a long tail distribution. What are the possible reward mechanisms in this new economy?

Our thesis is that in order to reward everyone who participates in p2p economic activity, and thus to incentivise contributions and make participation sustainable for everyone, we need to do contribution accounting: record everyone's contribution, evaluate these contributions, and calculate every participant's fair share. A method for redistribution of benefits can be established on top of this contribution accounting. If this method is transparently exposed at the beginning of the economic process, it then constitutes a contract among participants, and it allows them to estimate their rewards in relation to their efforts. We call this the contribution accounting system (CAS).

For the rest of this article we will try to explain why a CAS is needed in a more decentralized economy, and unavoidable in a global p2p economy.

From Trade Wars to Cosmo-Localism: What Kind of Globalization Do We Want?

The Canada-U.S. trade dispute reveals a deeper problem in the architecture of the global economy.

On August 21, 2026, Canada-U.S. trade negotiations collapsed after weeks of increasingly urgent discussions. Shortly after midnight on August 22, the United States imposed new 50% tariffs on approximately US$20 billion of Canadian imports. Canada suspended the talks, recalled its negotiating team, and announced dollar-for-dollar retaliation beginning September 8.

The immediate dispute concerns vehicles, metals, tariffs, deadlines, and conflicting accounts of who changed the terms at the last moment. Reuters reported that the proposed framework had included reductions in U.S. tariffs on Canadian-built vehicles and metals. CBC reported Canadian objections to last-minute U.S. changes, while U.S. officials accused Canada of shifting its position. Associated Press and The Guardian described the affected goods as spanning agricultural products, steel, aluminum, appliances, electronics, pulp and paper, clothing, furniture, cosmetics, cement, wine, cameras, and sporting goods.

But if we stay at the level of tariffs and negotiating tactics, we miss the larger lesson. This episode is not only about Canada and the United States. It is a window into a deeper property of modern globalization: economic interdependence can produce cooperation, but it can also produce coercion.

That gives us an opportunity to ask a more fundamental question:

What kind of global economy makes interdependence a source of mutual capability rather than a source of geopolitical leverage?

There is an alternative emerging from cosmo-localism, the world of peer production, commons, open source, distributed manufacturing. It does not propose abolishing markets or states. Rather, it suggests that markets, states, and commons can coexist while playing different roles. The proposition is simple but far-reaching:

Globalize knowledge, designs, protocols, and cooperation. Localize material production where appropriate. Build economic relationships that do not depend entirely on market exchange.

That could produce a very different kind of globalization.

Sources: CBC, Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, Politico