# Fee sharing

`kaal:entity:fee-sharing`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 4 claims that carry the concept tag `fee-sharing`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

4 claims across 4 works, 2018 to 2021.

**2018**

- [3125822-011](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3125822-011) [mechanism/argued] -- Enforcing a protocol in which all work fees are shared with the expertise produces a positive feedback loop: more fees raise the worth of reputation, which makes sem tokens more desirable than one time fees, which makes vested experts police the system carefully, which makes the system more secure.
  > The more fees are sent to the platform, the more the reputation is worth; which means the sem tokens will be more desirable to experts than one-time fees; which means the system will be carefully policed by vested experts; this makes the system more secure
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Vlad Andrei, Blockchain Infrastructure for Measuring Domain Specific Reputation in Autonomous Decentralized and A (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3125822
- [3128900-029](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3128900-029) [mechanism/argued] -- Sharing all work fees with the expertise creates a positive feedback loop: the more fees flow to the platform, the more reputation is worth, and the more workers prefer reputation tokens to one time fees.
  > Choosing to enforce a protocol where all fees are shared with the expertise creates a successful positive feedback loop: The more fees are sent to the platform, the more the reputation is worth; which means the reputation tokens will be more desirable to workers than one-time fees.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Decentralized Mechanical Turk Through Verified Reputation (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3128900
- [3266953-024](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3266953-024) [mechanism/argued] -- Because all fungible fees are already shared in proper proportion among Anchor holders, participants have less reason to join a mining pool, which makes the system more decentralized.
  > is less reason to join a mining pool, since all fungible fees are already shared in proper proportion, so it is more decentralized).
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Gopinath Sivalingam, Reputation Protocol for the Internet of Trust - Conceptual Whitepaper (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3266953

**2021**

- [3782210-017](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782210-017) [design/argued] -- All fees should be shared with the entire network of reputation holders in proportion to their holdings, because this reputational salary is what makes reputation tokens valuable and future-oriented.
  > All fees should be shared with the entire net- work of reputation holders relative to their holdings. This is the key to making reputa- tion tokens valuable and future-oriented.
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, The Importance of Reputation for the Evolution of Decentralization (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782210

## Verify

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/fee-sharing.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.