Good point. I suppose if that's your main concern, the above solution doesn't directly solve that.
However, doesn't that issue exist regardless whether the system change is by a community goal or through the general background simulation as well? It's always been the case that anyone trying to influence the political state of a system might be able to do it more easily in solo.
If the system change is being directly triggered by the final results of the community goal, then you could still use a similar method, but any large scale change of system allegiance, the result could possibly be influenced by some factor according to solo / open in a non obvious way. Frankly, do we even know that isn't the case today? I think FD have refused to reveal the inner workings of the background simulation, so do we even know for sure whether playing in solo vs open has no impact on the general simulation of faction influence and so on?
In other words individual rewards would follow my proposal above, but any large scale macro change would be balanced somehow.
The point here is that under my idea the minute to minute game play would be no different for anybody, only the calculation of the result after the fact.
My other thought here is that the current system is still fair to both sides either way - anyone trying to influence the results either way has the choice to play in solo or not.
I guess the crux of this is that some players want to run a blockade to prevent players supporting the other side from delivering their cargo, and don't want solo players to slip under the blockade? I'm afraid I don't have a magic answer to that, except to say that PVP combat was I think always envisaged to be an optional part of the game. You can still run a blockade, but you will only meet other commanders who are willing to participate in that part of the role play.
I'm concerned about the slippery slope of applying differences to what happens in solo vs group, but I do admit that I find it hard to justify why a community goal that is basically framed as a war between warring factions should not reward running a blockade in open play in some way.
Edit: Finally, there is also the very good point I've seen made by others that given the architecture of the game, even when you are in open play, you could still mess about with your network router to minimize the chance of being instanced with players, so I feel taht any balancing in this area would have to be somehow based on what you really did in open play, rather than just the fact that you are in that mode. This possibly shoots myself in the foot for my original argument, but the point still stands that the result of the community goal split by mode is a pride thing, and does not affect anybody's ability to get profits or whatever. Even the change of ownership of a system doesn't really impact anyone's ability to progress in the game.
Forget blockades. Forget PVP. Here's the simplest way I can explain this: 4 CMDR's playing in Solo mode compete against 4 CMDR's in Open mode to flip a system from one faction to another. Opposing Community event says, whichever side cashes in more combat bonds measured BY VALUE, wins control of the system.
.
The 4 Solo CMDR's each head to their Conflict zones and fight in them by themselves. They have no shortage of targets and get full bounty value for every kill or "tag".
.
The 4 Open CMDR's each head to their Conflict zones, and matchmaking says, "you're all in one instance". The 4 CMDR's in Open SHARE the same quantity of enemies that EACH CMDR in Solo gets. To make things worse, if one CMDR "tags" a target while in a Wing, the bounty value is shared equally. So not only do the 4 CMDR's in Open have less to shoot at, but the value of each destroyed enemy ship is a fraction of their Solo counterparts.
.
To provide some numbers: Assume each instance has a fixed earning potential of 1000 bounty credits per hour. Both groups fight for one hour.
.
The Solo CMDR's each earn 1000 Credits, totalling 4000 Credits toward the Community Goal.
.
The Open CMDR's each earn 250 Credits, totalling 1000 Credits toward the Community Goal.
.
Solo CMDR's win the Community event. Not because they were better players. Not because the coordinated better. Because they got 4x the earning potential over Open. That was 4x in my completely hypothetical example. The truth, as tested by player groups like the Dukes, have shown that earning potential is more like 6 to 8 times higher in Solo.
.
So, we "all have the same choices", right? If I want to win the Community Event, that will flip ownership of the background simulation, which can't be different between Solo and Open, then my choice is "play in open and lose, or play in solo and maybe win". That is not CHOICE. That is like flipping a coin to decide an outcome, and me saying, "I call, you choose: Heads I win, Tails you lose!".
.
There is too much hypocrisy in this thread by people who want the status quo. The main argument for pro-Solo players is, "if you buff Open, you're going to make our choices for us, and devalue us as customers." Yet the EXACT situation exists RIGHT NOW in the game: By having SOLO being a safe haven to maximize "gameplay" while minimizing "risks", the game is saying "we are making the choice for you, we don't value you as a customer." Stop being hypocrites.
) avid solo player that have done just a few incursions in open but does realise that you can't play tennis alone at the concrete wall and pretend to be recognized as no. 1 ATP tennis player 
