Altruistic Door vs Incentive Door · Same System, Different Psychology · 9.5/10 vs 8.5/10 · Together: 10/10
| Mission | Entity | Bag Colour | Motivation | Reward | Success |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Altruistic | CIO (Charity) | 🟣 Purple | Social responsibility | Meals + Free Deed | ★★★★★ Very High |
| Incentive | Ltd Company | 🟡 Gold | Economic participation | Carrot £133–200/t | ★★★★ High (managed) |
Diagram 1 · Altruistic Mission Differentiation · Coral Theme
| Reward | 40 meals + free deed |
| Proof | SHA-256 sealed deed |
| Tracking | Truth Ledger — scan your deed |
| Motivation | Social currency |
| Reward | Nothing (vague "good feeling") |
| Proof | "Trust us" |
| Tracking | No visibility |
| Motivation | Guilt / compliance |
Diagram 2 · Incentive Mission Differentiation · Indigo Theme
| Reward | Carrot cash £133–200/t |
| Proof | SHA-256 seal + payment receipt |
| Tracking | Truth Ledger — track your payment |
| Motivation | Cash for waste |
| Reward | Nothing |
| Proof | No proof |
| Tracking | No visibility |
| Motivation | Guilt |
| Metric | 🟣 Altruistic (CIO/Purple) | 🟡 Incentive (Ltd/Gold) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Motivation | "I want to help" | "I want to get paid" |
| Target Demographic | Families, schools, charities, retired | Young adults, cost-conscious, gig workers |
| Reward Type | Meals + deed | Cash £133–200/t |
| Material Quality | Very high | Variable (needs verification) |
| Contamination Risk | Low | Medium-High |
| Fraud Risk | Very low | Medium |
| Collection Density | Steady | Fast, volume-driven |
| Council Appeal | Very high | Low |
| ESG Value | High (meals) | Medium (circularity only) |
| Margin | Very high (free feedstock) | High (pay Carrot, keep dPRN) |
| Success Rating | ★★★★★ 9.5/10 | ★★★★ 8.5/10 |
Diagram 3 · Choice Architecture · Teal Theme
The power of the two-door system isn't just that it covers two demographics. It's that it creates a self-reinforcing social proof loop. When a Gold household sees their neighbour's Purple deed on social media — "We funded 40 meals with our plastic" — it creates an aspirational pull toward Purple even among cash-motivated participants. Over time, dual-door users emerge: the same household using both bags depending on their circumstance that week.
The 89%/11% demographic split is a starting point, not a ceiling. Cost-of-living pressures mean many "Altruistic" households will quietly switch to Gold as their finances tighten — and that's fine. The system works either way. The dPRN is minted either way. The meals are still funded (from dPRN revenue) either way. You don't lose anything when a Purple household goes Gold.
| 🟣 Altruistic (Purple) | 🟡 Incentive (Gold) | |
|---|---|---|
| Entity | CIO Charity | Ltd Company |
| Reward | 40 meals + deed | £133–200/t cash |
| Best for | Families, schools, councils | Young adults, gig workers |
| Material quality | Very high | Variable |
| Council appeal | Very high | Low |
| Risk | Low | Medium (fraud) |
| Success rating | 9.5/10 | 8.5/10 |
| Together | 10/10 · 100% market coverage | |
"Two missions. Same system. Different doors. Purple door: 'I want to help.' 40 meals. Free deed. Social proof. Gold door: 'I want to get paid.' Carrot cash. Bank transfer. Gig economy. 89% of citizens already recycle. They go purple. The remaining 11%? They go gold. 100% coverage. That's not recycling. That's market capture. Now execute both doors."