Ask HN: Engineers deserve better recognition. Can a protocol change that?

7 points by mzk_pi 294 days ago | 18 comments

Many engineers contribute significantly to open source, infrastructure, civic tech, and social impact—but rarely get recognition beyond GitHub stars or token mentions.

What if we had a protocol that could quantify and validate such contributions—not in money, but in trust, transparency, and long-term social value?

Could such a structure change how engineers are valued, or is reputation still bound to institutions and capital?

Curious to hear your thoughts. Has anyone tried designing or experimenting with such systems?

_kb 293 days ago |

Government employee here. The best engineers, technologists (and people in general) I’ve had the opportunity to work with don’t give a shit about this sort of thin validation.

No-one worth their salt in public service is there for the accolades, or money. They do it because they give a shit about the community / country / culture / cause they’re part of.

There are exceptions for sure - big project are a proven way to jump your career back to private - but the people I most respect are thinking long term and working relentlessly towards that.

In that domain technology isn’t the endgame, it’s impacts and effects are. If you want to support that, help them build tools, grow communities and attract others with a similar drive. Or if they are moving back to private because they need the money that provides, actually interview them, even if what they can put on a CV is thin on detail.

Tech doesn’t need to revolve around capital, whether that’s social or financial.

mzk_pi 292 days ago | |

Thank you for your comment. I deeply respect those who serve others without seeking praise.

We’ve supported people in poverty without seeking any profit. But in this capitalist society, acts of care that can’t be turned into money—so-called “invisible labor”—are often treated as worthless. Even those who received the support sometimes saw it that way. Kindness taken for granted often returned only as sadness.

That’s why we believe care and service deserve fair recognition. Don’t you think this could be possible—if we had an economic (or social) system that isn’t based on capitalism?

a_tartaruga 293 days ago |

I have no idea the current status but five years ago I knew an acquaintance who was building this: https://sourcecred.io which I think is pretty close to what you're talking about.

mzk_pi 292 days ago | |

Thank you! This is very similar to the protocol we are building. Your website taught me a lot — I really appreciate it.

By the way, is SourceCred still active? It looks like the Twitter and GitHub repos have been quiet for a while. Is your acquaintance still working on it?

sfmz 294 days ago |

Usually on socials people link to their other socials (github, stackoverflow, twitter, personal blog) in their bios. A system could parse all of those and give some kind of summary. HR may already have such tools, but it'd be better if it was open and transparent.

mzk_pi 293 days ago | |

This is truly a great idea! And it seems very feasible ＞▽＜ If this system existed, HR departments would definitely take advantage of it! It could increase the chances of discovering hidden talents who may not be good at sales. Your idea is a rare combination of profitability and contribution, making it a valuable asset in today’s evaluation system.

muzani 294 days ago |

I'm skeptical - it will be gamed, and suddenly everyone is doing this thing because it's part of the game. I used to rank top 5% in Stack Overflow, and it was a resume item. And now it's overrun by gatekeepers who only ensure that only the elites may ask questions.

mzk_pi 294 days ago | |

Thank you for sharing that — and I’m sorry you went through it.

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.

muzani 294 days ago | | |

It's not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles. Reward systems are prone to politics and eventually become a nest of politicians. When this system breaks down, the value of the system as a form of certification drops.

But the problem with many of these systems is they might be too democratic. Discourse, by the same creators as SO, also breaks from the very same problem - someone who is not part of the community suddenly becomes the community despot. The structure sounds similar to what you propose; anyone who makes contributions can govern.

I think you have to think through how scoring is done and managed. There are systems that work, like the Nobel Prize and Academy Awards, but those only work to recognize top people, not large groups of people.

giantg2 294 days ago |

I don't really want prestige or widespread recognition. Small scale recognition and the respect of my peers seems adequate - just enough that if I'm looking for a job that someone in my network can hook me up with a reasonably decent one (~$120k).

mzk_pi 294 days ago | |

Thank you. Do you truly feel that your $120,000 job is helping people in the future — from the heart? Isn’t it possible that your skills could actually save and support many more people?

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?

giantg2 294 days ago | | |

Why do you need recognition for doing good and helping people? It should be enough that you do it and that it helps you support yourself (eg open source contribution that can also help you get a job). Ego shouldn't be that big of a focus.