What Is Moral Trade?

Review notes and safeguard demonstrations

Learning examples only. These references do not configure a trade or change a commitment.

Worked-example review notes Safeguard demonstrations Wish-profile examples Technical specification

Short summary

A protocol, not a hidden moral ranking.

Moral Trade is a coordination service for voluntary, evidence-reviewed cooperation across moral disagreement. It supports pledge swaps, donation offsets, private matching, and shared public-good commitments while keeping baselines and review states explicit.

Explainer

What it is

A protocol and service for voluntary commitments between people who disagree morally but can still improve the outcome by their own lights.

Explainer

What it is not

Not a moral authority, escrow service, legal promise, tax product, autonomous matchmaker, or mechanism for buying off threats.

Explainer

Who it is for

Donors, researchers, organizers, founders, reviewers, and serious counterparties who can begin with one bounded, inspectable action.

How it works

Move from disagreement to reviewable terms.

The protocol records the default first, then makes actions, evidence, privacy, safety, and exit rules legible before either side relies on the arrangement.

01Record the no-trade baseline

02Specify bounded actions and timing

03Name evidence and privacy rules

04Review threats and externalities

05Accept only if both prefer the result

Examples

Start from a complete case, not an abstract promise.

Example

Personal pledge swap

Victoria gives more to global poverty if Paul keeps a vegetarian pledge. Each values the other's action more than the concession they make.

Inspect the route

Example

Donation offset

People who would otherwise fund opposed advocacy redirect matched amounts toward a mutually preferred destination, subject to baseline and externality review.

Inspect the route

Example

Moral public-good commitment

Participants with different ultimate priorities coordinate around a threshold commitment for a good many views value somewhat.

Inspect the route

Trust problems

The difficult parts are explicit product objects.

Serious moral trade requires more than a matching form. The service separates action evidence, counterfactual baselines, incentive risks, and third-party effects.

Factual trust

Did each participant do what they said? Evidence must be scoped to the actual claim.

Counterfactual trust

Would the action have happened anyway? Baseline confidence is separate from action evidence.

Perverse incentives

A mechanism must not reward people for worsening a baseline or manufacturing leverage.

Third-party externalities

A bilateral improvement can still harm people or values not represented by the parties.

Operating boundaries

Cooperation without overclaim.

What the service does not claim

No objective platform ranking of moral value.
No escrow, custody, legal advice, tax advice, or investment service.
No autonomous disclosure of exact wishes, identities, or contact details.
No threat market, harassment, coercion, or compensation for newly escalated harm.
No assumption that submitted evidence proves the counterfactual baseline.

Public validator contract

Required fields, statuses, guardrails, evidence schemas, provenance objects, and factor codes are published in the technical specification.

Open technical specification

Recourse

Participants and affected third parties can inspect challenge, appeal, disclosure, externality, and incident-response routes before relying on a record.

Review reliance and recourse

Where to go next

Move from primer to a concrete record.

Worked examples

Inspect complete terms before drafting anything.

Anti-threat rules

Baseline integrity, cooling-off rules, and rejected proposal patterns.

Moral public goods

Coordinate around goods many different moral views value.

Join the network

Choose one first action and create a backed account record.

Review notes and safeguard demonstrations

Learning examples only. These references do not configure a trade or change a commitment.

Worked-example review notes Safeguard demonstrations Wish-profile examples Technical specification

Short summary

A protocol, not a hidden moral ranking.

Explainer

What it is

A protocol and service for voluntary commitments between people who disagree morally but can still improve the outcome by their own lights.

Explainer

What it is not

Not a moral authority, escrow service, legal promise, tax product, autonomous matchmaker, or mechanism for buying off threats.

Explainer

Who it is for

Donors, researchers, organizers, founders, reviewers, and serious counterparties who can begin with one bounded, inspectable action.

How it works

Move from disagreement to reviewable terms.

The protocol records the default first, then makes actions, evidence, privacy, safety, and exit rules legible before either side relies on the arrangement.

01Record the no-trade baseline

02Specify bounded actions and timing

03Name evidence and privacy rules

04Review threats and externalities

05Accept only if both prefer the result

Examples

Start from a complete case, not an abstract promise.

Example

Personal pledge swap

Victoria gives more to global poverty if Paul keeps a vegetarian pledge. Each values the other's action more than the concession they make.

Inspect the route

Example

Donation offset

People who would otherwise fund opposed advocacy redirect matched amounts toward a mutually preferred destination, subject to baseline and externality review.

Inspect the route

Example

Moral public-good commitment

Participants with different ultimate priorities coordinate around a threshold commitment for a good many views value somewhat.

Inspect the route

Trust problems

The difficult parts are explicit product objects.

Serious moral trade requires more than a matching form. The service separates action evidence, counterfactual baselines, incentive risks, and third-party effects.

Factual trust

Did each participant do what they said? Evidence must be scoped to the actual claim.

Counterfactual trust

Would the action have happened anyway? Baseline confidence is separate from action evidence.

Perverse incentives

A mechanism must not reward people for worsening a baseline or manufacturing leverage.

Third-party externalities

A bilateral improvement can still harm people or values not represented by the parties.

Operating boundaries

Cooperation without overclaim.

What the service does not claim

No objective platform ranking of moral value.
No escrow, custody, legal advice, tax advice, or investment service.
No autonomous disclosure of exact wishes, identities, or contact details.
No threat market, harassment, coercion, or compensation for newly escalated harm.
No assumption that submitted evidence proves the counterfactual baseline.

Public validator contract

Required fields, statuses, guardrails, evidence schemas, provenance objects, and factor codes are published in the technical specification.

Open technical specification

Recourse

Participants and affected third parties can inspect challenge, appeal, disclosure, externality, and incident-response routes before relying on a record.

Review reliance and recourse

Where to go next