I want to say that I totally disagree with this philosophy/attitude. Why shouldn't we compensate svk for past work?
We are going to ask him to open source his work and then tell him he deserves no compensation for his past work except a pat on the back, and then ask what else can he do for us? Just because the work is done so maybe he doesn't have much "room to negotiate"? I think it's a bad attitude that serves to discourage others from freely contributing and shows a lack of appreciation.
Do we want to reward results or just "work"? I'd rather reward and encourage results.
These systems codify a "fair" or socially agreed distribution of stake. I think to get "buy in" we should cultivate a sense of fairness. I think it is ridiculous to expect people will contribute anything of significance if we take this attitude and I think it encourages competition. I'm not saying we reward things of questionable value but bitsharesblocks was a legit contribution.
You need to hammer it into everyone's head.
Back when this first started being announced I said we're going to have a problem with too many chiefs, not enough indians. Too many cooks in the kitchen. However one wishes to state it.
Rune has said to hire every developer we can possibly find. I disagree with that completely, but people who have shown work and progress already should be paid if they wish to be paid. If they don't continue with the work then they can be voted out. It is quite simple. Since SVK has already shown what he was willing to do for free, then there shouldn't be that much question about what he'll do going forward. Yes, he can quit working but he can be voted out relatively easily too.
One thing about this system is it is quite flexible. The overhead for hiring/firing is very small. The biggest problem is chasing people off by random people making endless noise that such and such is not producing value.