Imagine you have a shared finances account with whatever people you trust and don't pitty to give to. But the account is not just holding common savings pooled by a few people into one place, whatever the sum is placed into that account is automatically split into equal parts to all of its participants.
So the account is common, but at the same time divided into individual accounts. If there are five people and someone puts 10 euros into that shared wallet, everyone now has 2 euros each. You can withdraw the money from your individual account whenever you want and anyone can put whatever the sum they feel like into the common account whenever they want.
What's the point: This is a very simple model to approach testing radical division of finances and how human psychology would operate in those circumstances. If all the money in the world would be equally divided among all the people, would humanity turn out better or worse?
It is also a soft way to examine the latter because all the input money from the participants would come in the form of "donations". Whenever you felt like you have some excess money you can share, you could put it into that common account. Instead of donating to a single individual, institution, etc., you would donate to the circle of common people (including yourself).
So the main idea is for a person to give to the community whatever and whenever they feel they can/want and take what they get as a result whenever they need. Each person would then see what's the outcome of such an experiment - do they gain or lose when they're in this or maybe it doesn't make any difference.
Gaining doesn't necessarily mean gaining finances, giving, sharing also feels good, so if you don't feel like you lost something but someone feels they gained and appreciates your input, you'd also feel good, you improved the wellbeing of the group and that's the gaining. And if someone feels they've benefited from this they'll get encouraged to give more themselves.