As academics, we all receive a steady stream of pro bono requests. Personally, I write a lot more than ten recommendation letters each month, referee journal submissions, and—somewhat more tediously—prepare external assessment letters for hiring committees. I am, of course, committed to contributing to the profession alongside my primary responsibilities: conducting extensive research, teaching, and managing other academic duties. I see myself as a mentor and try to support colleagues and students whenever I can. And I am happy to do so. Yet, I sometimes find myself pausing. When I respond to substantial requests from hiring committees only to receive out-of-office replies lasting weeks, I cannot help but wonder: Wait, why is this request considered so legitimate and urgent on my end? Many academic publishers generate enormous revenues—some in the billions annually. Publishing is undoubtedly important. But are we allocating our publicly funded time and effort wisely? This leads to broader questions. Should we reconsider the structure of our refereeing system and the expectation that so much academic labor be provided pro bono? Should referees be compensated for their work? Why are these responsibilities so often taken for granted? Should external review letters for hiring decisions be paid? And if such labor remains unpaid, why is it acceptable that those requesting it are unreachable? I admit and confess that I do not have clear answers. I am deeply committed to science and perhaps overly motivated when it comes to contributing to the academic community. Still, I am uncertain about whether our current system is well designed. More fundamentally, should we rethink the incentive structures that shape academic life? And to what extent might academia be allowing itself to be exploited? Should we rethink to some extent how academia is being done? Comments most welcome, I have no good answers.