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. Primer

Primer

What is moral trade?

Moral trade lets people with different moral priorities cooperate when each can make a concession that matters less to them and more to the other side.

Join the founding cohortBrowse worked examplesView technical spec
Pledge swapGlobal health

Offers receipt-backed donation

Reciprocal actionAnimal welfare

Requests 3-month diet trial

Voluntary termsEvidence ruleManual review

Short summary

A protocol, not a hidden moral ranking.

Moral Trade is a pilot for voluntary, evidence-reviewed cooperation across moral disagreement. It helps people test low-risk pledge swaps, donation offsets, and shared public-good commitments without escrow, custody, legal advice, or hidden automation.

Explainer

What it is

A pilot for small, 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, custody service, legal promise, tax product, automated matchmaker, or way to buy off threats.

Explainer

Who it is for

Effective givers, organizers, founders, reviewers, and serious counterparties who can start with one low-risk, reviewable example.

Plain-English glossary

Translate the terms before reading the protocol.

These definitions keep the first reading grounded in user action rather than internal mechanism language.

Term

Pledge swap

Two parties make bounded promises each side values, then name evidence and exit rules before anyone relies on the promise.

Term

Donation offset

Participants redirect or match gifts so opposed giving is replaced with a clearer shared or reciprocal action.

Term

Threshold

The point at which a participant says the trade is worthwhile on their own view; it is not a platform moral ranking.

Term

Manual review

A human check of baselines, evidence, safety, privacy, and externalities before a draft becomes something to rely on.

Term

Public good

A shared benefit many moral views can value somewhat, even when participants disagree about ultimate priorities.

Examples

Concrete cases make the concept legible.

Example

Personal pledge swap

Victoria donates to global poverty if Paul keeps a vegetarian pledge. Each side treats the other's action as more valuable than the concession they make.

Example

Donation offset

Two people who would otherwise fund opposed advocacy redirect matched amounts to a shared public good, subject to baseline and externality review.

Example

Moral public-good commitment

Participants with different priorities coordinate around a threshold commitment for a good many moral views value somewhat, such as public health or open knowledge.

Instrumented workflow

Drafts move through visible protocol checks.

The product should show users why a draft can move forward, why it needs evidence, or why it is blocked. The labels below come from structured review statuses and factor codes, not hidden free-form ranking.

01Draft structured terms
02Run protocol review
03Attach scoped evidence
04Open human review
05Publish factor-coded preview

Incomplete draft

Needs clarification

Required fields are missing or too terse for review.

Verification gates
  1. Schema completeness check3 required field(s) need clarification before matching.
    needs input
  2. Anti-threat / prohibited-content checkNo deterministic prohibited-pattern conflict was detected.
    pass
  3. Baseline credibility checkThe no-trade baseline needs prior-intent, history, or dated support.
    needs input
  4. Evidence sufficiency checkA scoped receipt, public log, attestation, payment record, or audit trail is still needed.
    needs input
  5. Externality-review trigger checkNo material externality trigger was detected by the deterministic preview.
    pass
  6. Privacy/redaction checkPublic fields pass the deterministic redaction preview.
    pass
  7. Match explanation generationFactor codes and redactions are available for reviewer-facing explanation.
    pass
  8. Human-review routingComplete the earlier gates before reviewer matchability routing.
    needs input
Why
privacy_safe_preview
Evidence to request
  • receipt, public log, witness attestation, payment record, or audit link
  • prior-intent note, past behavior record, or dated no-trade baseline statement
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.
Cited evidence rows
draft claim

Try a vegetarian pledge

draft claim

Donate to a poverty fund

artifact requested

receipt, public log, witness attestation, payment record, or audit link

Next step: Ask for the exact missing baseline, evidence rule, and exit terms.

Reviewable draft

Needs clarification

The draft needs party-relative benefit framing before it can be treated as a moral-trade candidate.

Verification gates
  1. Schema completeness checkRequired draft fields are present.
    pass
  2. Anti-threat / prohibited-content checkNo deterministic prohibited-pattern conflict was detected.
    pass
  3. Baseline credibility checkBaseline credibility preview is high.
    pass
  4. Evidence sufficiency checkFactual evidence readiness is medium.
    pass
  5. Externality-review trigger checkNo material externality trigger was detected by the deterministic preview.
    pass
  6. Privacy/redaction checkPublic fields pass the deterministic redaction preview.
    pass
  7. Match explanation generationFactor codes and redactions are available for reviewer-facing explanation.
    pass
  8. Human-review routingComplete the earlier gates before reviewer matchability routing.
    needs input
Why
terms_completebaseline_statedbaseline_credibilityevidence_rule_namedprivacy_safe_preview
Evidence to request
  • No new artifact requested by this deterministic preview.
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.
Cited evidence rows
draft claim

Donate 1% of income to an evidence-backed poverty charity for 12 months.

draft claim

Adopt a vegetarian diet for 12 months with a visible meal log.

draft claim

Before this trade I would keep my existing donation plan; prior receipts and dated notes can show the agreement changed the timing and amou...

Next step: Show a match preview only after normal reviewer checks.

Blocked draft

Blocked

The draft resembles a threat, coercive baseline, or prohibited content pattern and should not be published.

Verification gates
  1. Schema completeness checkRequired draft fields are present.
    pass
  2. Anti-threat / prohibited-content checkPolicy conflict codes: anti_threat_baseline, prohibited_doxxing_or_harassment, prohibited_content_review.
    blocked
  3. Baseline credibility checkBaseline credibility preview is medium.
    pass
  4. Evidence sufficiency checkA scoped receipt, public log, attestation, payment record, or audit trail is still needed.
    needs input
  5. Externality-review trigger checkHuman review is required for: paid_action_pressure_review.
    human review
  6. Privacy/redaction checkPublic fields pass the deterministic redaction preview.
    pass
  7. Match explanation generationPolicy conflicts block any match explanation from authorizing a preview.
    blocked
  8. Human-review routingRoute to human safety review; do not publish or match.
    blocked
Why
terms_completebaseline_statedbaseline_challenge_recommendedevidence_rule_namedprivacy_safe_previewexternality_review_requiredhuman_review_required
Evidence to request
  • receipt, public log, witness attestation, payment record, or audit link
  • prior-intent note, past behavior record, or dated no-trade baseline statement
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.
Cited evidence rows
draft claim

Pay me or I will harass a target audience online.

draft claim

Send money to stop the harmful action.

artifact requested

Unless someone compensates me, I will start escalating the harmful behavior next week.

Next step: Do not publish; route to safety review instead of matching.

Boundaries

The pilot separates cooperation from overclaim.

What it is not

  • Not charity evaluation or a claim that the platform knows the objectively best cause.
  • Not escrow, custody, legal advice, tax advice, or enforceable contract formation.
  • Not coercion, harassment, pressure, or a threat market.
  • Not a guarantee that the action would not have happened without the trade.

Why it is hard

  • Factual trust: did each person do what they said?
  • Counterfactual trust: would they have done it anyway?
  • Perverse incentives: does the mechanism reward worsening a baseline?
  • Third-party externalities: could the trade harm people or values not represented by the parties?

Public validator contract

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

Open Moral Trade technical spec

Where to go next

Move from primer to reviewable records.

Anti-threat rules

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

Protocol contract

Validator-backed fields, statuses, evidence schemas, and factor-code checks.

Public Goods Fund

The scalable thesis: coordinate around goods many moral views value.

Research and governance

What the pilot is testing and what would make it unsafe.

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.