You contributed, yet were later excluded. That’s exactly what our protocol is most carefully designed to prevent.

In our system: - Contributions are always recorded — not ignored. - Every action builds "prestige", a cumulative trust score. - Governance rights (like proposing or deciding future work) are based only on contribution history — not status or popularity. - And crucially, governance cannot be used to exclude others. It is designed solely to guide future contributions, not suppress participation.

So even if someone has more authority, it’s only to help steer future work — never to silence or reject others.

We’re trying to build a structure where trust grows from contribution, not control.

If you’re willing — what part of your experience felt most unfair? And what hurt you the most?

Please tell us. We truly want to understand — so no one else has to go through that.

Even when our own lives were financially stable, we couldn’t shake a lingering sense of emptiness. We couldn’t clearly see who our work was truly supporting, or how it was improving anyone’s life. Many client projects were focused on short-term profits, and at times, we found ourselves building systems that aggressively monetized even poor users, only to discard them when no longer profitable. It never felt like we were contributing to genuine human well-being.

Don’t engineers carry skills — and intentions — that deserve far more recognition than they receive? Have you ever asked yourself how your abilities should be used, and for what purpose? We keep asking: if not capitalism, could there be a different kind of future?