Here is my point of confusion on having a shard received from a chest costing 15KP. How do you charge the person? Let's use the example of a person putting a shard into an AW and receiving chest with 15KP and a shard. So overall that person gets 15kp and their shard count remains what it was. Now in the AW program this would mean the person under paid since they put in 15KP but got 30 back.
This is easily dealt with in a balance driven program. Before when the contributions are recorded, that person's balance would increase by 15. Now receiving a shard reduces the contribution by 15 making, thus the person's balance stays the same.
In a net0 there is nothing recorded, so how is it known that the person owes 15KP, presumably to the person who owns the AW? Where is this info recorded? How is it paid back? net0 works with small paybacks, but the shard usage will make the amount owed huge, as least for a while. But even after the bulk of shards people have drops to a reasonable level, the payback is still problematic. Looking at the case another way, put in 2 shards for that 15KP chest. Oops, now I'm getting the 30KP chest which may have 2 shards but let say it's only 1. Now the contributor gets 30KP back and a shard, so instead of paying back 15KP, they now owe 30KP for the 2 shards received. What am I missing? How it the accounting handled, and paybacks of this magnitude done in a net0 program? I know if you owe 15kp, there are various ways of paying it back. The simplest is to take the largest chest and put 15KP more than it cost. Now you would have to do that plus 15KP times the number of shards in it.
Lastly, regardless of what AW program you use, how do you explain this in a way to the members of the FS so they understand the why charge for the shards and how that is dealt with in a way that they don't say "Huh?" If they don't understand and have to go with accepting "Trust me", it seems like they will either drop out of the AW program or find an FS that doesn't use a program that comes off to them as either insane or unfair?
EDIT: The section on the balance driven AW program has many, many errors from the calculation of the persons balance and how it affects the price/choosing of a target. Sorry about that. Please ignore that paragraph.