Personal pledge swap
Posted by Ellen. This dossier combines public terms, discussion, recommendations, interest, and transaction tracking in one record.
Marketplace terms
The marketplace view puts exposure, timing, verification, and failure rules before the full review dossier. It does not bypass the existing response, payment, or review gates.
Research and coordination only. This proposal does not collect funds, promise matching, establish custody, or certify a recipient. Any funding path requires separate reviewed terms and provider evidence.
Terms before theory
Review workflow
Each card exposes the current review state, factor codes, and the next human-controlled step before matching, disclosure, or completion trust.
current status
human reviewStatus: open.
Why this status: human review: the visible status is still a review state, not completion, custody, enforceability, or moral endorsement.
action evidence
needs inputStatus: Needs evidence. Your draft is structurally complete, but no reviewable proof method has been attached yet.
Why this status: needs input: no reviewable proof method or evidence locator is attached yet.
baseline confidence
human reviewNot assessed: Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.
Why this status: human review: the baseline has not been assessed enough to clear counterfactual review.
Offer dossier
Research and coordination only. This proposal does not collect funds, promise matching, establish custody, or certify a recipient. Any funding path requires separate reviewed terms and provider evidence.
Not a platform moral ranking. These scores reflect participant-stated views, not Moral Trade's assessment of moral value.
I will produce a one-page coordination brief for one candidate moral public good, including the shared-value case, threshold logic, free-rider risk, evidence route, and material objections.
Submit one candidate public good with a source, identify the groups that may value it, and include one serious objection or externality concern.
Common-ground funding
A source-linked brief plus an explicit objection and evidence checklist | Complete within ten days of a reviewable submission | trust level 3/5
A source-linked brief plus an explicit objection and evidence checklist
Not assessed: Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.
Review whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
open
Non-financial research exchange.
Respond to this offer
Contact and response paths stay sign-in and consent gated. Create an account or sign in before sending a message so private wishes, contact details, and agreement history remain tied to a member-controlled record.
Recommendations
Owners can recommend other users' offers from their own offer pages. These public links help people trace trust and substantive overlap.
Owner-published recommendations will appear here once they are added.
Public comments
Each offer has a public comment thread. Comments can be nested, voted on once per user, and linked back to public member profiles.
I will produce a one-page coordination brief for one candidate moral public good, including the shared-value case, threshold logic, free-rider risk, evidence route, and material objections.
Effect on this action: Requires adapter recheck. This is context, not a verdict.
Evidence: A source-linked brief plus an explicit objection and evidence checklist
Live offer · Live
Moral public-good coordination pledge → Candidate evaluation and dissent donation
No commitment was created.
externality review
passReview whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.
Why this status: pass: no offset, payment, or political-adjacent trigger was detected.
participant relative scores
passParticipant-stated importance 7/10; counterparty minimum 5/10. Confidence: Medium.
Why this status: pass: scores are bounded as participant-stated context, not platform ranking.
appeal scope
human reviewAppeals should target the specific reviewed claim, evidence row, baseline concern, disclosure decision, or policy flag.
Why this status: human review: appeals require reviewer handling and must stay within the reviewed issue.
Participant action guide
These prompts are pulled from the public review-workflow contract, so the page shows the same baseline, evidence, safety, score, and appeal instructions that validators check.
Baseline helper
What would you do if this trade did not happen? Be concrete. Mention your current intention, prior behavior, or any evidence that makes your baseline credible.
Needs evidence status
Status: Needs evidence. Your draft is structurally complete, but no reviewable proof method has been attached yet.
Safety boundary
This proposal cannot be published because it resembles a threat, coercive compensation request, or newly escalated harmful behavior.
Participant importance
This score reflects the participant's own stated priorities. It is not a platform judgment about objective moral value.
Appeal scope
If you think this review decision is wrong, appeal the specific claim that was reviewed. Appeals do not reopen unrelated moral disagreements by default.
© 2026 Moral Trade
Ellen
Public comment | 7/14/2026, 2:51:24 PM
Operator review artifact v1 (not independent certification). Baseline: no coordination brief is produced without a reviewable candidate and objection. Evidence: source-linked candidate description, shared-value map, threshold and free-rider analysis, and explicit dissent. Money: no funds are collected and no match is promised. Externalities: at least one serious objection is required. Recourse: funding requires a separate reviewed workflow. Status: open proposal; manual review required before reliance.