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. Omar: Public health for Climate

Worked example

Omar: Public health for Climate

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

Personal pledge swap

Public health for Climate

Duration

6 months

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

Evidence method

Public pledge

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

Offered action

Volunteer four hours monthly with a community health campaign.

Requested action

Cut two weekly car trips and redirect the savings into climate resilience.

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

human review

Action evidence

A dated public pledge plus light follow-up evidence.

Why this status: human review: a proof method is named, but the artifact still needs reviewer inspection before reliance.

evidence_rule_namedevidence_sufficiency

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

baseline confidence

needs input

Counterfactual baseline

Weak: Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.

Why this status: needs input: the baseline is weak and needs dated no-trade evidence.

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

pass

Externality review

Review 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.

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 6/10; counterparty minimum 6/10. Confidence: Low.

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

6/10

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

6/10

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

Confidence

Low

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

Action evidence

Public pledge

A dated public pledge plus light follow-up evidence.

Baseline confidence

Weak

Review should capture a dated no-trade baseline and any evidence that the agreement changed behavior.

Third-party externality review

Required before reliance

Review whether the trade creates third-party harms, bad incentives, or objections from moral views not present in the match.

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.