Also just to pick up on this again:
Instead, she may work on projects and tasks that are part of a larger shared endeavour, and in which she acquires ownership and influence proportional to the value of her contributions.
This is the vision of the Colony protocol: a system by which people can coordinate complex and collaborative work, in which contributions toward shared goals are justly rewarded
I’d just like to highlight that this model is more suited to estimate how famous and eager to attach their name to things someone is rather than how plainly useful their contribution was. As such, to a certain extent, it’s a kind of ‘gifting’, or ‘honoring’, if moving money on those principles. Which, again, is alright.
It just doesn’t make much of a statement about how crucial the contributions of any of the involved parties were. It makes a statement about how easily comprehended the contribution was to non-expert other parties, and how it was communicated, e.g. how much praise you want to shower yourself with and how much you want to discredit the contributions of others, while getting away with it barely.
This concern will remain relevant with any money system as long as we are in a situation where people cannot be experts on everything and cannot know everyone else equally well. edit: Though we surely can mitigate it to ‘some’ extent by intentionally using technology to make available more and more credible knowledge to third parties. I think that’s an interesting direction to explore, too.