But the extended Dane-geld concept is quite rarely referred to as tribute. It was a feature of Chinese foreign policy during the pre-modern period that all diplomatic relationships involved the other country explicitly acknowledging the superiority of China. Other countries paid tribute to China, and China responded with the magnanimous grace (return gifts) appropriate to its exalted station.

Despite finicky wording, a lot of money and silk somehow got sent up north.

Cities all over the world and across history have found it preferable to hand out welfare to the local poor rather than suffer through riots. The Romans conceived of a goddess of welfare (yep) to whom it was proper for the poor to give thanks when they got their free bread. Modern Americans like to speak in terms of prserving the essential dignity of being human. But it's not so easy to see a difference in the policy, or the strategy, other than the rhetoric that accompanies it. I suspect that if the rhetoric were switched to "let's pacify the poor so we don't get murdered in our beds", support would drop despite the policy staying the same.

Similarly, you can "buy peace" with another nation just by overpaying for some minor consideration they end up giving you in the peace negotiations - basically the same concept as accounting goodwill. Everyone involved knows what's going on, but the process is near-totally opaque to the outsiders who cry "war is better than tribute".