Openyear has an interesting concept. It believes it can make money by developing a technology that tracks who influences who, and that people will share part of their income with their influencers.
On its web site Openyear.org, it features Muhammad Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace prize winner and his efforts to eradicate poverty worldwide. And throughout the site it makes references to high ideals.
The global economic system will encourage individuals, businesses and institutions to share their prosperity and participate actively in bringing prosperity to others, making Income Inequality an irrelevant issue. Unemployment and welfare will be unheard of.
Openyear seems to be saying that "income inequality" can be eradicated by implementing its system of influencer tracking.
This is how it would work:
Say you’re an earner making $50K per year, and your company is headed by a super earner CEO making $500K per year. Whenever what you write or say reaches your CEO , or anyone else using Open Pay, we track your influence on them and rank it relative to all the other people influencing them within a 2 week pay period. If you’re among the top people influencing your CEO (or anyone on Open Pay), you get a payment based on a percentage of his $500K salary automatically (or a percentage of anyone’s salary you influence on Open Pay). Likewise, people that influence you will receive a payment based on 2% of your salary, provided courtesy of Openyear.
You would have the opportunity to put up some of your money. In return, you would get a chance to share in more than 2 per cent of other people's money. More details here. Openyear is right that there is money to be made from influencing people. But we already have well developed pathways to monetize influence.
Influencers get compensated by being paid to do what they do: as analysts, journalists, broadcasters, professional athletes, company leaders, teachers, etc.
Openyear is proposing a complex system of tracking influence. And it believes that people will gladly open up a chunk of their income to be paid to others. For example, it is running a poll that asks people if Larry Ellison should share his annual compensation, which in 2008 was $556 million, with people that influence him.
What would Mr Ellison get out of this deal? It doesn't make sense.
Also, why is Openyear cloaking its business motives by making it seem as if it aligned with the noble goals of Mr Yunnus.