Skip to main content
Moral Trade
Understand▾
UnderstandStart with the idea, source, and safest first route.
Choose your pathRoute by intent: learn, test an example, donate, or join/build.What is Moral Trade?A plain-language primer for new visitors.How it worksA simple walkthrough from example to review.SourcesPrimary references and product-boundary notes.FAQCommon questions and operating limits.
Explore▾
ExploreInspect what is live enough to read, clone, or donate through.
ProjectsWhat is live, illustrative, or upcoming.Worked examplesSeeded structures, not live offers.All offersLive offers and worked examples.Pledge swapsExchange bounded commitments.Donation offsetsRedirect matched opposed donations.Donate through a routeUse a vetted external donation handoff.
Join▾
JoinMove from examples into one supported pilot action.
Create bounded tradeDraft terms with baseline, exit, evidence, and review gates.Create donation offsetSet baseline, match, destination, surplus, and evidence rules.Create wish profileDescribe broad wishes before mutual disclosure.Founding cohortInvite one serious counterparty and start small.Private matchingConsent-gated counterparty discovery.Create accountUse member workflows after the public primer.
Trust▾
TrustCheck status, review rules, safety boundaries, and recourse.
AboutWhat exists today, what does not, and what comes next.What you can rely onPrototype guarantees, review states, and non-guarantees.Pilot statusWhat is real, reviewed, or still prototype-stage.ValidationEvidence states, challenge windows, and review scopes.SafetyCoercion, fraud, and pressure boundaries.Anti-threat rulesBaseline integrity and externality checks.AccessibilityWCAG-oriented QA scope, limitations, and support route.MeasurementPrivacy-safe event taxonomy and performance baselines.TransparencyAggregate review, disclosure, report, appeal, and operator timing counts.Team and governanceOperator routes, reviewer roles, and public gaps.Pilot updatesPublic logs, governance updates, and case-study notes.ContactReach the pilot operators or report a support issue.
Search
See exampleSign in
  1. Home
  2. Public Goods Fund

Public Goods Fund

Coordinate around moral public goods.

The Public Goods Fund is the pilot's main test of moral-public-goods coordination: verified contribution intents, conditional payment authorization, sponsor matching, dissent notes, and reviewer verification for goods many moral views can value.

Every.org fast routeWebhook before countingReviewer verificationIntegrated checkout planned, not active
View public roundStart conditional contributionReview candidate poolsGovernance and rulesFunding metrics

How participation works

1. Choose route
Use the Every.org fast route, saved commitment path, or fallback evidence flow.
2. Wait for import
Redirects remain pending until provider webhooks or reviewed evidence arrive.
3. Review before counting
The fund only counts reviewed evidence in contribution state.
Integrated checkout
Planned after provider approval
Technical spec
OverviewWhy this mattersWhy this is hardWhat this pilot testsAssurance matchingPublic roundGovernanceFunding metricsEvidence reviewCandidate poolsAllocation processTechnical notes

Overview

A public fund for overlapping moral reasons

The Moral Public Goods Fund, or MPGF, is the mechanism name. Public pages use Public Goods Fund so newcomers can understand the purpose before the acronym.

Consensus goods

Moral public goods are things many people value for moral reasons, such as global health, existential-risk reduction, animal welfare, and durable public-interest knowledge.

Identity and authorization before counting

The primary flow records a pledge intent, verifies identity, authorizes payment conditionally, and falls back to manual evidence only when provider integration is unavailable.

Legal posture

Unless this page explicitly says otherwise using legally approved wording, MPGF is not representing that funds are held in legal escrow. This page does not provide tax, legal, financial, or investment advice.

Why this matters

Many moral views overlap on some public goods

People may value global health, animal welfare, existential-risk reduction, public-interest knowledge, or climate resilience somewhat, even when they prioritize different idiosyncratic goals. That overlap can create gains from coordination.

Overlapping reasons

Participants do not need one shared moral theory to value a public good enough to coordinate.

Distributed power

Candidate pools, dissent notes, and public review make coordination legible without central moral ranking.

Scalable wedge

Threshold commitments are easier to review publicly than many private bilateral trades.

Moral Trade

A pilot institution for cooperation under disagreement.

Moral Trade helps serious participants test small, reviewable commitments across moral disagreement. It does not provide legal, tax, escrow, or custody services.

Marketplace

  • Projects
  • Choose your path
  • Browse offers
  • Worked examples
  • Pledge swaps
  • Donation offsets
  • Donate through a route
  • Public Goods Fund
  • Private matching

Learn

  • About
  • What is moral trade?
  • How it works
  • Methodology
  • Measurement
  • Transparency report
  • Safety policy
  • Anti-threat rules
  • Validation
  • Accessibility
  • Moral Trade technical spec
  • Evidence standards
  • FAQ
  • Deferred paid offers
  • Sources

Community

  • Team and governance
  • People
  • Wish registry
  • Founding cohort
  • Pilot updates
  • Create account
  • Sign in

About

  • Contact
  • Pilot status
  • What you can rely on
  • Transparency report

Why this is hard

Moral public goods still face a free-rider problem

Voluntary contracts alone may not solve public-good underprovision. The pilot therefore treats public-goods coordination as mechanism research, not proof that a fund exists or that all contributions will be counterfactually caused by the site.

Counterfactual uncertainty

External payment evidence shows an action happened, but not always why it happened.

Dissent and externalities

Some groups may object to candidate pools, measurement choices, or incentive effects.

No custody shortcut

Non-custodial coordination preserves posture but makes verification and reporting more important.

What this pilot tests

Threshold commitments before broad marketplace mechanics

The Fund tests threshold commitments, external-payment evidence, dissent notes, candidate pools, reviewer verification, and non-custodial coordination in one public workflow. Its motivating layer is verified assurance matching: pledges count only after amount, supporter, review, and evidence gates are satisfied.

Sponsor pool$1,500
Payable campaigns2
QF bonus allocated$500
Review statusOpen

Verified Assurance Matching

Pledges execute only after enough verified people join

A demo common-ground sponsor pool releases a 1:1 challenge match only after assurance and review gates pass. The capped QF bonus is applied only to threshold-cleared, review-approved campaigns, so broad support allocates sponsor dollars without replacing review or destination proof.

payable

Global health and basic needs assurance campaign

A thresholded route for participants who want an external global-health destination to receive support only after enough verified people join.

Verified direct contributions
$275
Verified supporters
3/3
Guaranteed base match
$275
Estimated bonus range
$274.97-$412.50
Amount threshold100%
Supporter threshold100%
Deadline May 31external charity
View public proof path

threshold pending

Existential-risk resilience assurance campaign

A fiscal-hosted route that can attract support from longtermist, humanitarian, and pluralist participants without making a global moral ranking.

Verified direct contributions
$360
Verified supporters
2/3
Guaranteed base match
$0
Estimated bonus range
$0-$540
Amount threshold72%
Supporter threshold67%
Deadline May 31fiscal host
View public proof path

payable

Animal welfare transition assurance campaign

A thresholded external-handoff route for reducing intense animal suffering while preserving review and challenge windows.

Verified direct contributions
$225
Verified supporters
3/3
Guaranteed base match
$225
Estimated bonus range
$225.03-$337.50
Amount threshold100%
Supporter threshold100%
Deadline May 31external charity
View public proof path

expired

Public-interest knowledge assurance campaign

A signed-intent route for shared evidence infrastructure that only becomes payable after supporter and review thresholds clear.

Verified direct contributions
$90
Verified supporters
1/2
Guaranteed base match
$0
Estimated bonus range
$0-$135
Amount threshold50%
Supporter threshold50%
Deadline May 20signed sponsor route
View public proof path

Round: May 2026 Verified Assurance Matching demo. Demo budget for the older ballot allocation remains $1,000 and external payouts remain $0.

Evidence and payment review path

Contribution intents start with identity and conditional authorization

Signed-in participants can create a pledge intent, verify identity, and authorize a provider-managed payment that captures only after threshold, review, and challenge gates. Manual evidence remains available when provider integrations are unavailable.

Pledge intent

Participants choose a campaign, amount, visibility setting, and fallback rule before any contribution can count.

Provider events

Stripe webhook records can support provider-approved flows when real-money mode is configured. The public pilot still treats provider data as review evidence rather than a promise of custody or legal escrow.

Participant controls

Signed-out visitors can inspect the workflow, but contribution intents, identity checks, payment authorization, and manual evidence records require sign-in.

How participation works

Verify identity, authorize conditionally, then wait for review

The public hub explains the workflow without embedding the full submission console. Signed-in participants use the dedicated contribution page to create contribution intents or submit manual evidence when provider authorization is unavailable.

01

Create a pledge intent

Select the campaign, amount, visibility preference, and manual fallback rule.

02

Verify identity and authorize payment

Identity checks and conditional provider authorization happen before threshold counting.

03

Reviewers count it only after gates clear

Threshold, review, provider event, and challenge gates must pass before capture or counting.

Start conditional contributionView contribution state

Candidate pools

Demo pools are clearly marked as demo pools

These alternatives are non-real-money examples used to show how candidate public goods can be described before any live allocation or payout workflow exists.

Demo pool | Global poverty and health

Global health and basic needs reserve

A demo ordinary-pool alternative representing cost-effective poverty, health, and basic-needs interventions.

Consensus goodReview state: demo only
Amount verified
$0
Amount pending
$0
Inspect pool

Demo pool | Long-run future

Existential-risk resilience reserve

A demo ordinary-pool alternative for projects that reduce catastrophic or existential risk without live disbursement.

Hybrid goodReview state: demo only
Amount verified
$0
Amount pending
$0
Inspect pool

Demo pool | Animal welfare

Animal welfare transition reserve

A demo ordinary-pool alternative for reducing intense animal suffering while preserving ordinary pilot safeguards.

Hybrid goodReview state: demo only
Amount verified
$0
Amount pending
$0
Inspect pool

Demo pool | Epistemics and institutions

Public-interest knowledge reserve

A demo ordinary-pool alternative for knowledge infrastructure that helps diverse moral communities reason and coordinate.

Consensus goodReview state: demo only
Amount verified
$0
Amount pending
$0
Inspect pool

Allocation process

Two-stage review before any public reliance

The pilot separates evidence review from allocation review. Evidence records must be accepted before they count, and demo allocation records remain internal plans rather than disbursement, custody, or effectiveness guarantees.

01

Evidence review

Check external destination, amount, reference, payment date, and supporting evidence.

02

Allocation review

Review candidate pools, demo reasoning, dissent notes, and published technical records.

Technical notes

Detailed mechanism language lives behind the overview

Technical records remain available for auditors and mechanism reviewers without making them the first thing a new visitor has to parse.

Technical specCandidate poolsPriority Correction Fund
  • Research and governance
  • Reasoning Center
  • Allocation notes
  • Candidate pools

    • Legal

    • Privacy
    • Terms
    • Accessibility
    • Safety policy
    • Evidence review

    Reference points include Toby Ord's paper on moral trade and Forethought's discussion of convergence, compromise, threats, blockers, and moral public goods.