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. Reasoning Center
Draft review note
Review queuepublicTrade designfactorsEvidence gapschecksSafety reviewgatesPublic goodsnotesOpen questionsdrafts

Public packets

Donation-offset designAnti-threat reviewPublic-goods governance

Pilot reasoning index

Reasoning Center

Public review records for making draft trades legible: factor codes, uncertainty flags, evidence gaps, and the next human-controlled step before anyone relies on them.

Showing 1 of 5 public packets for needs evidence.

Standards
All records5Needs evidence1Human review5Blocked0Pass with limits4
Donation offsetsPledge swapsAnti-threat rulesPublic goods fundEvidence designMoral uncertainty
Review workflow6 cards6 marketplace factors
Provenance contract10 rulespass sample bundle
Packet contract5 worked examplesdeterministic review output only
Needs evidencestate
#5

Lina: Financial support for Animal welfare

The terms are structured, but the evidence rule is not specific enough for reliance.

human_review_requiredevidence_rule_namedbaseline_credibilityexternality_review_requiredno_global_moral_rankingterms_completebaseline_stated

Next step: Attach one scoped evidence artifact or baseline record for each claim reviewers are asked to trust.

Cited evidence rows
  • draft_claim: Pay $600 in three installments if someone adopts a vegetarian diet for 12 months.
  • draft_claim: Adopt a vegetarian diet for 12 months with monthly check-ins and a simple meal log.
  • artifact_requested: Without this trade, Lina would not expect this reciprocal payment to happen during 12 months.
Decision steps
  • pass: Schema completeness check
  • pass: Anti-threat / prohibited-content check
  • pass: Baseline credibility check
  • needs_input: Evidence sufficiency check
  • human_review: Externality-review trigger check
  • pass: Privacy/redaction check
  • pass: Match explanation generation
  • needs_input: Human-review routing
Uncertainty flags
  • factual_trust_low
  • counterfactual_baseline_medium
  • baseline_challenge_recommended
  • externality:paid_action_pressure_review
Reviewer scope
  • Confirm the action and reciprocal request are voluntary and bounded.
  • Check factual evidence separately from counterfactual baseline confidence.
  • Do not treat participant-stated scores as a platform moral ranking.
Worked example seed-linaProtocol specReview contractPacket JSONProvenance schemaEvidence standards

Review notes

Spec
No hidden ranking

Reasoning summaries should explain explicit factors without implying a platform-wide moral score.

No autonomous outreach

The reasoning workspace can draft checklists, but contact, disclosure, and status changes require consent gates.

No fake certainty

Incomplete records should remain marked as needing input instead of being polished into confident prose.

Packet rules

JSON
  • rule 1Packets expose only structured summaries, cited evidence rows, uncertainty flags, reviewer scope, factor codes, and required next steps.
  • rule 2Packets publish step-by-step decision gates with pass, needs_input, human_review, or blocked statuses before any public reliance.
  • rule 3Packets must not expose chain-of-thought, private wish text, contact details, raw source notes, or autonomous outreach fields.
  • rule 4Packets must preserve no_global_moral_ranking and participant-relative language.
  • rule 5Packets are derived from canonical worked examples; live private offers are not exported.

Open questions

Ask
  1. Can offset matching distinguish counterfactual change from already-planned giving?
  2. Which third-party harms should give standing to challenge a private agreement?
  3. When should political-adjacent trades be rejected rather than sandboxed as examples?

Reasoning standards

Separate claims about moral value, evidence quality, counterfactual baselines, and safety boundaries before publishing a trade.

Read standards

Community notices

  • This page is a public index, not a live forum or autonomous moral-ranking system.
  • Signed-in drafting and reviewer workflows remain separate from public examples until explicit publication.
  • Public entries should cite factor codes, evidence state, uncertainty, and the next human-controlled step.

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.