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
What about societal contributions that go into such, but are not formally participated in the process? (edit: consider the commons, e.g. family, friendship, or all work where monetization is not as strongly pursued by one party than by the other party. If maximal eagerness to make yourself known by whatever method means that you take home much more credit and income, it sets some problematic incentives. This is where taxation by external authority usually comes in handy to maintain that incentives don’t get out of control.) I think it’s an illusion that one could ever fairly be compensated. In my view, one can only get more than they could care to bargain for if working for others, or not work for others. (edit: or of course be arbitrarily controlled by necessity/market winners/bureaucrats. I think it’s on us to mitigate at least as much of that as we can.)
From each according to their ability, to each according to their reputation-weighted token holdings.
Basically, the ability to attach your name to an accomplishment is not directly correlated to how much one did to realize the idea.
I’m not saying this means we need to stop giving each other money for getting famous, I’m saying that that’s not making a conclusive statement about much, and might better be considered in part, a form of gifting. It’s fun to give each other more than we could care to bargain for, it’s fun to be humbled by gifts as well.
But I think the important change in this context, is one in thinking, not so much one in organizing principle. As much as this is a cool approach and might be very helpful for hybrid merit-gifting relations as we’re increasingly practicing em today.