AI contributor reward calculator: worked examples
Incentive Lab separates customer revenue from token subsidy, then allocates a declared reward budget using accepted work and quality weights. Contributor caps and exact budget conservation keep the scenario inspectable. The worksheet does not establish Sybil resistance or distribute tokens.
Three fictional scenarios, calculated by the same engine as the tool. They illustrate behavior and failure cases, not customer outcomes or measured provider performance.
Rewards need a subsidy
Compare the balance before and after paying contributors.
- Operating contribution, before rewards
- 5 USD
- Including declared subsidy
- 105 USD
- Unallocated reward budget
- 0 USD
| Contributor | Accepted tasks | Quality factor | Eligible | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributor A | 10 | 0.9 | Yes | 18 |
| Contributor B | 5 | 1 | Yes | 12 |
| Contributor C | 30 | 1 | No | 0 |
Run this scenario Input JSON Calculated report
Inspect every input
{
"currency": "USD",
"customerRevenue": "80",
"tokenSubsidy": "100",
"computeCost": "50",
"reviewCost": "20",
"otherCost": "5",
"budget": "30",
"capPercent": 60,
"contributors": [
{
"id": "Contributor A",
"acceptedTasks": 10,
"quality": 0.9,
"independent": true
},
{
"id": "Contributor B",
"acceptedTasks": 5,
"quality": 1,
"independent": true
},
{
"id": "Contributor C",
"acceptedTasks": 30,
"quality": 1,
"independent": false
}
]
}Remove the token subsidy
Inspect whether customer revenue alone funds the reward plan.
- Operating contribution, before rewards
- 5 USD
- Including declared subsidy
- 5 USD
- Unallocated reward budget
- 0 USD
| Contributor | Accepted tasks | Quality factor | Eligible | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributor A | 10 | 0.9 | Yes | 18 |
| Contributor B | 5 | 1 | Yes | 12 |
| Contributor C | 30 | 1 | No | 0 |
Run this scenario Input JSON Calculated report
Inspect every input
{
"currency": "USD",
"customerRevenue": "80",
"tokenSubsidy": "0",
"computeCost": "50",
"reviewCost": "20",
"otherCost": "5",
"budget": "30",
"capPercent": 60,
"contributors": [
{
"id": "Contributor A",
"acceptedTasks": 10,
"quality": 0.9,
"independent": true
},
{
"id": "Contributor B",
"acceptedTasks": 5,
"quality": 1,
"independent": true
},
{
"id": "Contributor C",
"acceptedTasks": 30,
"quality": 1,
"independent": false
}
]
}Tighter contributor caps
A cap can leave part of the reward pool undistributed.
- Operating contribution, before rewards
- 5 USD
- Including declared subsidy
- 105 USD
- Unallocated reward budget
- 15 USD
| Contributor | Accepted tasks | Quality factor | Eligible | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributor A | 10 | 0.9 | Yes | 7.5 |
| Contributor B | 5 | 1 | Yes | 7.5 |
| Contributor C | 30 | 1 | No | 0 |
Run this scenario Input JSON Calculated report
Inspect every input
{
"currency": "USD",
"customerRevenue": "80",
"tokenSubsidy": "100",
"computeCost": "50",
"reviewCost": "20",
"otherCost": "5",
"budget": "30",
"capPercent": 25,
"contributors": [
{
"id": "Contributor A",
"acceptedTasks": 10,
"quality": 0.9,
"independent": true
},
{
"id": "Contributor B",
"acceptedTasks": 5,
"quality": 1,
"independent": true
},
{
"id": "Contributor C",
"acceptedTasks": 30,
"quality": 1,
"independent": false
}
]
}A mistake worth catching
A cap applies to a declared contributor ID, not a verified person. Splitting identities can defeat the economic intent unless a separate identity and review process is effective.
Use the method with your records
Use accepted tasks × declared quality as weights. Apply strict per-contributor caps with largest-remainder allocation; leave infeasible budget unallocated.
No live subnet data, fraud detection, Bittensor emission replication, staking recommendation or token distribution.
Read the complete method, sources and input contract. Updated 2026-09-19; by the AGI Scorecard team.