Usage-Based Payment Decay

Time-based payment decay solves one problem (ancient techniques shouldn't pay forever), but creates another: What happens when a technique becomes wildly popular?

If 10,000 works all use "unreliable narrator reveal," and it keeps paying the originator at full rate, the math breaks. More importantly, at some point widespread adoption makes something part of the common creative vocabulary - it's no longer a distinctive attribution, it's a foundational technique everyone uses.

Proteus needs usage-based decay in addition to time-based decay.

The Compound Decay Formula

Payment weight is calculated by combining time decay AND usage decay:

Formula:

Payment Weight = Base Match % × Time Decay Factor × Usage Decay Factor

Time Decay Factor:

0-10 years: 1.0 (100%)
10-20 years: 0.5 (50%)
20-50 years: 0.25 (25%)
50+ years: 0.0 (0%)

Usage Decay Factor:

1-100 uses: 1.0 (100%)
101-1,000 uses: 0.7 (70%)
1,001-10,000 uses: 0.4 (40%)
10,001-100,000 uses: 0.1 (10%)
100,000+ uses: 0.0 (0%)

Decay is multiplicative, not additive. Both factors reduce payment over time.

Why Both Factors Matter

Time alone isn't enough:

Scenario 1: Slow adoption, old technique

Created in 1990 (35 years ago)
Only 200 works use it (niche technique)
Time factor: 0.25
Usage factor: 0.7
Payment weight: 17.5% (still pays because it's not saturated)

Scenario 2: Viral adoption, new technique

Created in 2023 (2 years ago)
75,000 works use it (went viral on TikTok)
Time factor: 1.0
Usage factor: 0.1
Payment weight: 10% (reduced despite being new)

Scenario 3: Both old and saturated

Created in 1975 (50 years ago)
250,000 works use it (everyone uses this)
Time factor: 0.0
Usage factor: 0.0
Payment weight: 0% (foundational status achieved)

This prevents both the "ancient technique" problem and the "viral saturation" problem.

Preventing Gaming

Attack vector 1: Spam submissions to trigger decay

Someone submits 10,000 low-quality works all using a technique to force it into foundational status.

Defense:

Quality scoring filters low-value content from both usage counts and payment pool
Manual review flags suspicious patterns (10,000 works from one account)
Usage counts only works that pass minimum quality threshold
Minimum engagement threshold (must be viewed/consumed)

Attack vector 2: Avoiding usage to maintain payment

Someone creates a technique, then tries to prevent others from using it to keep usage count low.

Defense:

Can't prevent others from using a technique once it's public
Attribution happens whether creator wants it or not
Usage counts reflect actual influence, not permission

Attack vector 3: Self-saturation

Creator submits 100 works all using their own technique to avoid paying themselves.

Defense:

Own works don't count toward usage decay
This would only hurt the creator (diluting their novelty scores)
Payment graph filters prevent self-payment loops anyway

The Math: Why This Still Rewards Innovation

Let's compare a novel technique vs. a saturated technique:

Novel technique (100 uses):

100 works match at 40% each
Payment weight: 100%
Earnings per use: Full 40% of allocated payment
Total: 100 × 40% × $0.20 =$ 8 per consumption cycle
Annual (with 1,000 consumption events): $8,000

Saturated technique (50,000 uses):

50,000 works match at 40% each
Payment weight: 10%
Earnings per use: 10% of 40% = 4% of allocated payment
Total: Limited to top 15 influences (payment graph cap)
Annual earnings: ~$2,000 (reduced weight, capped usage)

The innovation advantage: Creating something new and distinctive pays more per derivative than creating something that becomes ubiquitous.

This incentivizes creating new, distinctive techniques rather than copying saturated ones.

Live Dashboard: Tracking Your Technique Adoption

Creators can see their techniques spreading in real-time:

What you can see:

Current usage count
Current payment weight
Distance to next tier
Earnings trend over time
Which works are using your technique

What you can do:

Track influence spread
Anticipate payment weight changes
Understand which techniques are most valuable
Plan which techniques to develop further

Integration with Time Decay

The compound effect of time + usage decay creates natural lifecycle:

Different paths to foundational status:

Slow adoption: Time decay dominates
Viral adoption: Usage decay dominates
Moderate adoption: Both factors contribute

All roads lead to foundational eventually - the question is which factor gets there first.

The Bottom Line

Usage-based decay solves the saturation problem: techniques that become ubiquitous stop paying as they transition to foundational status. Combined with time-based decay, this creates sustainable economics that reward innovation while preserving cultural history.

Novel techniques pay well. Popular techniques pay less. Foundational techniques pay nothing but are never forgotten.

This is how Proteus will prevent infinite payment obligations while ensuring creators earn from genuine influence.