Relationship to contribution value
Contribution value asks which real contributions, responsibilities, and long-term values should be seen. The resource pool asks what resources and capabilities exist, and under what rights and conditions. The former is the foundation for recognizing value; the latter is the foundation for resource provision.
Why direct conversion is not possible
Contribution value may serve as a limited factual input to judgments about non-basic resources, collaboration, and responsibility, but cannot automatically generate resource-use rights. Needs, basic rights, scarcity, responsibility, legitimate authorization, alternatives, and actual consequences must all enter the decision.
Two manuscript tracks
V2.2-R2 addresses continuity and rights boundaries; V2.2-I1 supplements interfaces among the resource pool, shared worlds, and real-world coordination. The two run in parallel; neither supersedes the other by having a higher version number.
Current stage
This text is not an actual resource inventory, trading platform, dispatch system, or authorizing body. Visibility of a resource does not imply permission to use it.
Resource provision does not exclude contributions through earning money, holding positions, or exercising power
Contribution value is not reserved for unpaid, inconspicuous, positionless or powerless activity; it is not against markets, wealth, positions or power. Business, work, earning income, public communication, holding office, management and responsible exercises of power during launch and transition may also create recordable contributions. What matters is not whether conduct is mainstream, profitable, visible or socially positioned, but what value it creates, responsibility it carries, outcomes it brings to whom, harm it reduces, shared systems it maintains and long-term externalities it generates. Money, fame, office and power are neither automatic proof nor grounds for exclusion.
Such contributions may serve as limited factual inputs, but resource-use rights must still be formed through basic rights, needs, scarcity, responsibility, authorization, and actual consequences.
Continue from this work
This publicly presented theory, institutional design or concept explains purposes, causality, conditions, responsibilities, interfaces and risk boundaries. It does not establish practical feasibility for specific actors, resources, jurisdictions, responsibilities and users. Concrete engineering must be developed in the wider context once real conditions are clear.