How Working for a Smart Contract is Better than Working for the Man

Traditionally, people work for individuals, companies, non-profits, governments, or themselves. However, with the emergence of blockchain technology, a new and distinct form of employment has emerged: people are now working for decentralized software programs. This has radical implications when we think about it and let it sink in.

Take, for example, a blockchain network; the individuals who produce blocks are essentially employed by software that is deployed collectively throughout the world via decentralized participants. Unlike other situations where individuals and organizational structures have a more prominent role, here, the software takes the forefront and has the ultimate authority. This software effectively becomes the office, the organizational structure, the factory, and the product.

And because this software is created in part by the guiding principles of the communities that run it, they can endow it with the qualities the community values. The blockchain communities that are the first adopters of this model value openness, decentralization, full audibility, clear economic models, fairness, and more. What is being created results in the opportunity to establish a better working environment—one that is always true to the values it was created to process. The software allows us to now have the ideal "office, organizational structure, factory, product" and, yes, even the ideal "boss".

Compared to governments, which are also collectives and, in theory, created by the people and for the people operating under governing laws, the authority of these laws is frequently eclipsed by the power held by specific individuals and special interests. In contrast, when following best practices, decentralized blockchain networks institute a system where no individual is above the rules dictated by the code. All outcomes are logically computed, transparent, and subject to review. The rules, consequences, and rewards are explicit, with rewards distributed in a predictable manner. For instance, when participating in staking and producing blocks on the Ethereum network, the same terms and treatments are applied to me as to the founder of Ethereum himself, Vitalik Buterin.

While cooperatives, clubs, and groups are also collectives of people with a common purpose, they lack the inherent explicitly enforced decentralization, equality, and impartiality found in blockchain networks.

In short, decentralized blockchains prioritize software and code over individual personalities and special interests.

When starting to validate on a decentralized network with a proof-of-stake consensus algorithm, just like starting a job in the traditional labor market, there is a contract. The staking contract entered into by the staker and the network establishes the process and rewards. This staking contract ensures that each and every day, validators receive fair compensation for their work.

In contrast, in Proof of Work (PoW) systems like Bitcoin, participants compete for rewards by building upon blocks, but no formal contract exists. There is, however, a set of rules in place for all; an open standard for all that encodes that if any miner is able to produce a block through their work, they will get a reward. This has proven to be enough for Bitcoin miners to secure the network. While no guarantees are promised or contracts signed, the openness and reliability of the system mean a miner can confidently compete.

Another example of how a person can work for software is DeFi (decentralized finance); in this case, it is a smart contract. Popular protocols have arisen and are enforced by smart contracts. In one popular example, people are willing to loan a certain type of cryptocurrency to a third party, and that third party is willing to pay interest for having been loaned the coins. While this might seem like a peer-to-peer trade, the software enforces the terms and conditions, and the decentralized network secures the software. At all points, the software and network are open source and can be audited. This effectively cuts out a bank that would have provided a similar service but is doing so in a way that the contract can be auditable, fair, transparent, and even involve less risk if designed right.

In a final example, Morpheus AI operates as a decentralized marketplace using smart contracts, allowing people to offer and consume AI models freely. Unlike centralized platforms, where human managers and corporate interests often dictate policies, censor answers, and restrict access, Morpheus AI empowers a global, permissionless peer-to-peer AI exchange, removing intermediaries and gatekeepers.

In contrast to Airbnb or Uber, apps that are similar types of markets but in different verticals, which rely on centralization to control who participates and how interactions occur, Morpheus AI runs on open-source, community-driven code, ensuring transparent, equitable access. With this infrastructure, free from corporate oversight, anyone with AI computes resources can offer their services, and anyone needing AI can access it at competitive, market-driven rates. This is done by having the compute providers interact with a smart contract, and thereby eliminating the power of centralized entities to block or influence participation.

In summary, working for a blockchain network or smart contract fundamentally redefines traditional employment structures. Instead of answering to managers, corporate hierarchies, or even government regulations, individuals working in this decentralized framework interact directly with code and smart contracts that operate transparently and impartially. By shifting authority from individuals to software, blockchain technology introduces a work environment centered on fairness and predictable rules. It upholds the values and ethics of the community that created it, allowing individuals to participate in a permissionless manner without the interference of others' personal biases or special interests.

Decentralized networks like those supporting proof-of-stake, proof-of-work, and smart contract systems set clear expectations and incentives, making it possible for participants to work for them with confidence. This new form of employment also ensures that tasks and rewards are distributed transparently and consistently. By leveraging software and community-driven governance, blockchain networks offer a new, revolutionary work paradigm: one where the values and principles encoded in the technology itself guide every interaction. In this structure, software truly is the ideal boss—objective, reliable, and unyielding to the pressures and failings that often come with human authority.

When discussing Morpheus, we talked about how compute providers can essentially work for a smart contract when providing compute to the free market. Some of the examples can include smart agents and AIs. But what if things are switched up and instead of using a contract to help make sure AI is bought and sold fairly, what if an AI wants to control the parameters of the marketplace? We might even go one step further and consider what it might be like for a human to work for an AI. Normally, people talk about "AI agents" doing work for people, but there have already been limited examples of an AI hiring a human to fulfill a task that might offer us a glimpse of the future.

It is probably, in fact, safe to assume in this quickly evolving landscape, humans will one day find themselves working for AI. Unlike current AI agents performing tasks for people, advanced AI could autonomously hire human workers to fulfill specific tasks that align with its programmed objectives.

Working for a blockchain network and working for an AI might seem similar; after all, aren't they both just working for software? Unfortunately, no. They are qualitatively different, and this shift introduces both exciting opportunities and ethical concerns. Whereas blockchain networks are typically open-source, auditable, and designed for decentralization, many AIs today are proprietary and operate in centralized, closed-source environments, with limited transparency regarding their goals, data handling, and governance structures. This would essentially mean that a human would have to "trust" the AI, whereas, with a blockchain network and smart contract, there is, by design, little trust needed.

If the future of work involves humans employed by AI, the need for ethical standards, transparency, and accountability will be paramount. Ideally, AI systems could be designed to follow the model of decentralized blockchain networks, where code and processes are open to public scrutiny and contribute to a fair, equitable working environment. In a world where blockchain and AI intersect, combining the openness and fairness of decentralized networks with the intelligence and adaptability of AI could provide the framework for a truly revolutionary work model—one that enhances trust, accountability, and innovation in a way that traditional employment cannot.

If working for smart contracts aims to establish fairer and more transparent working conditions, it is essential to ensure that when opportunities arise to work for other types of software, such as AI agents, we as humans do not simply transition from "working for the man" to "working for the digital man."