Guaranteed income would work better than salary. (In the US, Social Security and Medicare for all.) But I guess, good luck getting that to happen…although advocates exist.

Beyond that, “to each according to needs”. (And good luck with that, too. Although it might work to some extent in a local network.)

The question “In that case, what type of security could replace it?” presupposes that wage labor is not going to be a part of the system, and the answer here is simple – each partner gets a share, equal to the others, share and share alike. As an aside, I think the dynamics of the group – in groups that last – would only allow members to slack off in reasonable amounts, there’d have to be a level of work expected that would neither allow free riders, nor work all of the partners into burn-out. It might be a good idea to work this out at the beginning…

Waged labor is a form of alienation, as it turns labor power into a commodity. But the salary is at the same time a conquest of the labor movement, insuring security. By removing these securities, crowdsourcing and other peer-related labor forms are endangering these conquests. A big question is: should we defend the salary form, or is this impossible or even negative. In that case, what type of security could replace it?

I think what you are describing is a cooperative, one partner, one man one vote. And of course, I am very supportive of this democratic format. However, we define peer production quite differently in the P2P Foundation, as a production process which is participatory, open to contributions, and universally available. The convergence between the two would give you something like open cooperatives, in which the immaterial value is shared with the whole of humanity, and the material rival goods are produced by coops. Today, coops are operating within the existing marketplace, with the benefits of their members as the aim; in the new format, they automatically produce value for the rest of humanity as well.