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. Worked examples
  3. Christopher: Gun control for Gun rights

Worked example

Christopher: Gun control for Gun rights

A non-live example showing the term structure, evidence rule, and review state a public Moral Trade listing should expose before anyone relies on it.

Create similarBack to examplesRead primer
StatusWorked example; manual review required before reliance

This page is a canonical example record, not live liquidity or a matched agreement.

Structured terms

What this example trades

Format

Donation offset

Gun control for Gun rights

Duration

3 months

Exit conditions and reliance rules must be confirmed in a real agreement room.

Evidence method

Manual review required

Evidence must be named before either side treats the trade as complete.

Offered action

Redirect $1,000 I would have sent to gun-control lobbying into the same global poverty fund.

Requested action

Redirect $1,000 you would have sent to gun-rights lobbying into that poverty fund.

Review context

Why this is still only an example

The worked record demonstrates scanability and terms, but a real listing still needs identity checks, evidence review, challenge windows, and an agreement room after a mutual introduction.

current status

human review

Status card

Status: Worked example; manual review required before reliance.

Why this status: human review: the visible status is still a review state, not completion, custody, enforceability, or moral endorsement.

status_visiblehuman_review_required

Next step: Treat this as a review state, not a claim of completion, legal enforceability, custody, or moral endorsement.

action evidence

pass

Action evidence

Reviewer inspection of the named evidence before reliance.

Why this status: pass: a named proof method and clear evidence locator are present for reviewer inspection.

evidence_rule_namedevidence_sufficiency

Next step: Attach or inspect one scoped artifact for each factual action claim before relying on the record.

baseline confidence

pass

Counterfactual baseline

Moderate: Baseline claim: $1,000 would otherwise have gone to Gun control. Reviewers should ask for prior giving history, dated intent, and counterparty challenge.

Why this status: pass: the baseline is stated with enough support to enter counterfactual review.

baseline_statedbaseline_credibility

Next step: 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.

externality review

human review

Externality review

Political-adjacent case study. Keep below lower-risk examples and require externality review for affected communities and unrepresented values.

Why this status: human review: the mode or causes can affect third parties, incentives, or unrepresented values.

externality_review_requiredhuman_review_required

Next step: Ask who is affected outside the two parties, what harm pathway exists, and what remedy or challenge window is available.

participant relative scores

pass

Participant-relative scores

Participant-stated importance 8/10; counterparty minimum 7/10. Confidence: High.

Why this status: pass: scores are bounded as participant-stated context, not platform ranking.

participant_relative_scoresno_global_moral_ranking

Next step: This score reflects the participant's own stated priorities. It is not a platform judgment about objective moral value.

appeal scope

human review

Appeal scope

Appeals 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.

appealable_review_scopereviewer_summary

Next step: If you think this review decision is wrong, appeal the specific claim that was reviewed. Appeals do not reopen unrelated moral disagreements by default.

Participant-stated importance

8/10

Not a platform moral ranking. This score reflects the participant's stated view, not Moral Trade's assessment of moral value.

Counterparty minimum acceptable importance

7/10

A counterparty would still need to agree this threshold is adequate.

Confidence

High

Confidence is about the stated score and review context, not objective moral value.

Action evidence

Manual review required

Reviewer inspection of the named evidence before reliance.

Baseline confidence

Moderate

Baseline claim: $1,000 would otherwise have gone to Gun control. Reviewers should ask for prior giving history, dated intent, and counterparty challenge.

Third-party externality review

Required before reliance

Political-adjacent case study. Keep below lower-risk examples and require externality review for affected communities and unrepresented values.

Safety boundary

No escrow or custody claim

Moral Trade records terms and evidence; it is not legal, tax, custody, or escrow service.

Externality questions

  • Who might object to this trade?
  • Could this create bad incentives?
  • Could this harm people or values not represented by the parties?
  • Does this proposal need external reviewer input?

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
  • 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.