Entry 012: Dilution, Not Decay

Decision

Power earned in OLN is permanent — it does not decay or expire. However, governance influence is measured as a share of total Power, which grows as the platform grows. Sustained influence requires sustained contribution. Influence is always relative to the contributing community at the present moment.

Reasoning

Dilution achieves the same governance outcome as decay through growth rather than subtraction. Yesterday's contribution doesn't permanently dominate today's, but no one's accumulated work is taken from them.

Psychologically and operationally better than decay.

Psychologically: dilution is neutral (the natural shape of any growing community) where decay is punishing (feels like loss).
Operationally: dilution is simple — no decay curve to design, no exemption process for sabbaticals or life events, no "your Power is going down" notifications.

Maps to corporate equity intuitions productively. Cap tables work this way — early shareholders aren't punished but are diluted as new shares issue. Everyone understands the model. Founders feel the company growing rather than feel their position eroding.

Eliminates the perverse "contribute desperately to avoid decay" incentive. Under decay, contributors face treadmill anxiety that warps behavior. Under dilution, contribute when you have something genuine to offer; relative influence adjusts naturally.

How it works against takeover scenarios

Veteran fade attack disappears. Adversaries cannot wait for founders to decay out — founders' absolute Power persists. Adversaries must outgrow the founders, which is harder than waiting them out.
Coordinated takeover still requires sustained contribution at scale. Quadratic voting on constitutional matters dilutes influence. Sybil resistance (G-004) still matters.
Foundation board mission lock remains the structural backstop. See Entry 014.

One trade-off acknowledged

Under decay, an inactive contributor's Power genuinely diminishes, which means a corrupted or hostile former contributor cannot accumulate Power and weaponize it from disengagement. Under dilution, in theory someone could earn Power, disengage, and still hold meaningful absolute weight years later. In practice this is solved by relative-share mechanics, quadratic voting on constitutional matters, and the Foundation board lock — but dilution is slightly weaker than decay against this specific attack pattern. Trade considered worthwhile given dilution's other benefits.

Note on this decision's evolution

Initial discussion contemplated decay-with-floor as the mechanic. The Creator pushed back: a continuously growing platform naturally creates more Power and Credit availability, so dilution is the correct frame, not decay. This correction is captured here because the reasoning matters and future contributors will have opinions.

Open questions (G-033)