The adversarial analysis is so key. But that's why regulation is so important too.

For example, in the case of the exploitative advisor, in the status quo, there is no way to disincentivize an advisor from doing this. If a student reports it to a professional society, their only leverage is that *maybe* the advisor's reputation gets harmed. But in a system where all reviewing activities can be tied back to rights to publish, a professional society could remove an advisor's ability to publish. That should be a great enough threat to deter exploitation more than it happens now.

For review quality, that's where editors come in. For example, in the journal I am editor of, I would charge my Associate Editors with checking reviews against our carefully community curated reviewer guidelines, and if a reviewer doesn't meet them, withhold their token until they do. So community enforcement of standards would be essential to preventing abuse.

For individual surplus tokens, I think there's a whole range of exciting things someone could do. They could bank them, buying years of freedom from reviewing; they could donate them to junior faculty from marginalized groups to buy them time to focus on research; they could give them to emerging communities with exciting new research topics, accelerating their work. In the status quo, none of this is possible.

If I manage to implement it anywhere, I will definitely share here.