How Contributor Credits Work
Every contribution you make to the knowledge base behaves like a project outcome under uncertainty: it accrues value over time, weighted by confidence and recency — and it compounds into real subscription and licensing credit.
Two ways your work earns credit
A one-time credit for clearing review, and an ongoing stream tied to whether the assistant actually uses your material to answer a question. Quality is rewarded twice — once for acceptance, again for proven usefulness.
Credit on acceptance
A flat, one-time credit awarded when your submission clears review and enters the knowledge base — independent of whether it's cited yet.
| Short-form (article, transcript, structured note) | 10 |
| Medium (recorded lesson, 10–30 min) | 30 |
| Long-form (course module, in-depth paper) | 75 |
Credit per cited use
Every time the assistant draws on your material to answer a question, you earn a fraction of a credit — scaled by how strong the match was and how new the content is.
Strong match, first 90 days: 1 × 1.0 × 1.5 = 1.5 credits. Weak match, after 6 months: 1 × 0.1 × 1.0 = 0.1 credits.
Why the curve, not a flat rate
Credit accumulation is shaped like a project S-curve: slow while content is new and un-indexed, steep once it starts getting cited, and flattening as the topic gets covered elsewhere or ages past its 90-day novelty window. Contributors who fill genuine gaps in live demand see the steepest climb.
Nothing earns credit until it clears the gate
Credit accrual only begins after content passes review — this is what keeps the incentive pointed at quality rather than volume.
Accuracy & relevance
Reviewed by the platform team — Fernando initially, expanding to a small panel as submission volume grows.
Non-duplication
Material overlapping existing knowledge-base content is merged or rejected, never double-credited.
Attribution
Accepted content is attributable by name, so the assistant can cite you the same way it cites Fernando's source videos.
Monthly cap on usage credits per contributor — keeps early content from permanently dominating the pool as more experts join.
Where credits convert to value
Two channels: a discount ladder for your own subscription, and a licensing offset if you want to build on iziRisk's knowledge base yourself.
Reaching a tier locks in that discount at renewal — your balance isn't spent down below it while usage credit keeps accruing.
Platform licensing
For contributors licensing iziRisk's broader knowledge base or platform for their own practice or tools.
off licensing fees, capped at 40% of total cost
Kept separate from subscription tiers since licensing is a B2B arrangement with its own pricing. (TBD)
Open questions worth deciding early
- Credit expiry: proposed 24 months unused, pending finance input on liability exposure.
- Contributor credentialing: a verification step before submission, separate from content review — protects the trust the whole product is built on.
- Co-authored content: default to an equal credit split unless specified otherwise at submission.
- Reviewer capacity: define the panel-expansion trigger (e.g. 20+ pending submissions) before it becomes a bottleneck.
Numbers above are a starting proposal for internal review — pending finance, legal, and platform sign-off before anything here goes live to contributors.