Internal Economy Protocol
Download this template
Generated 2026-08-31 · Download all templates
Commons vs. Private Classification
What belongs to all of us, what stays personal, and where is that written down?
RCOS clauses 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.6.2
- 5.1.1 All resources within the declared governed scope MUST be explicitly classified as either commons or private.
- 5.1.2 The community MUST maintain a single, explicit, and versioned registry of governed resources, including at minimum:
- 5.1.3 Any resource not explicitly classified MUST be treated as unclassified, and the community MUST NOT allocate, encumber, monetize, or transfer it until classification is completed through an authorized decision.
- 5.1.4 For commons resources, the community MUST explicitly define:
- 5.1.5 For private resources, the community MUST NOT exercise authority beyond what is explicitly declared in the scope, membership agreements, or other governed artifacts.
- 5.6.2 Resources declared as commons MUST NOT be privatized through informal, implicit, or unilateral action.
Why classify every resource?
Unclassified resources are where quiet privatization happens — someone starts treating a shared asset as personal, or a private asset gets quietly absorbed into community obligations, and by the time anyone notices the norm has shifted. Explicit classification, with stewards and transfer rules named up front, makes any change to that status a visible governance act rather than a creeping fact.
How to fill this in
For each resource the community holds, declare classification (Commons / Private), name a steward, define access rules, and state transfer constraints. Unclassified resources must not be allocated, encumbered, monetized, or transferred until classified.
| Resource | Classification | Steward | Access rules | Transfer constraints |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <e.g. RCOS specification and artifacts> | <Commons / Private> | <steward role> | <who reads / writes> | <transfer constraints> |
| <e.g. Shared treasury> | <...> | <...> | <...> | <...> |
| <e.g. Community website / domains> | <...> | <...> | <...> | <...> |
| <e.g. Brand and social accounts> | <...> | <...> | <...> | <...> |
| <e.g. Land or physical infrastructure> | <...> | <...> | <...> | <...> |
> Any unclassified resource must not be allocated, encumbered, monetized, or transferred until classification is completed.
What to cover
- For each thing we hold — land, buildings, money, tools, websites, accounts: is it shared by all of us or someone's own, and who is its steward or owner?
- For each shared resource: who may use it and how, who decides about it, who looks after it, and how is its upkeep paid for?
- Can a shared resource ever be sold, lent out or made someone's own — and if so, only through which decision, so it never happens quietly?
- Where does our say over someone's private belongings stop?
- Where is the list kept, how is each change dated and versioned, and what happens to something nobody has listed yet?
Examples
Every change to our resource register is a new dated version agreed at a members' meeting. The land and workshop are shared: any member may use them, and the land group decides about them and keeps them up through monthly work days, with repairs paid from the shared budget. Shared resources may not be sold, lent long-term or made private except by a vote of full members. Members' homes, vehicles and savings are their own, and we have no say over them beyond the membership agreement. Anything not yet registered stays untouched until classified.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Recognized Contribution Categories
Which kinds of work do we count as contribution — including the work nobody sees?
RCOS clauses 5.2.1, 5.2.3, 5.6.3
- 5.2.1 The community MUST explicitly define which contribution categories are recognized. These MAY include, but are not limited to:
- 5.2.3 The community MUST NOT structurally depend on unpaid, invisible, or informal labor for system survival without explicitly defining corresponding obligations, recognition, or compensation mechanisms.
- 5.6.3 Contribution recognition MUST be explicit such that unpaid or invisible labor is not structurally required for system survival.
Why name the kinds of work that count?
If the community never says out loud which kinds of work it depends on, the invisible work — care, facilitation, moderation, stewardship — stays invisible, and the people doing it burn out or leave. Enumerating categories converts "someone just does this" into recognized labour the system has to account for.
How to fill this in
List the categories of contribution your community recognizes. Care, facilitation, stewardship, and informal participation are commonly under-recognized — name them explicitly if they apply.
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| <e.g. Knowledge & Research> | <examples> |
| <e.g. Technical Development> | <examples> |
| <e.g. Governance & Coordination> | <examples> |
| <e.g. Community Building> | <examples> |
| <e.g. Care & Support> | <examples> |
| <e.g. Stewardship> | <examples> |
| <e.g. Informal Participation> | <examples> |
What to cover
- Which kinds of contribution do we recognise — for example practical work, care, teaching, coordination, upkeep?
- Which work keeps us running but is rarely noticed or thanked — hosting, listening, cleaning up after meetings, moderating, chasing paperwork?
- For each kind of work we depend on: is it recognised, shared out as a duty, or paid — so that nothing essential relies on someone quietly doing it for free?
- How would we notice that work we depend on is missing from the list? (How contributions are recorded is its own question.)
Examples
We recognise six kinds of contribution: writing and research, building and maintaining our tools, coordination and facilitation, welcoming and mentoring new members, moderation and care for people in conflict or distress, and upkeep of shared documents and accounts. Moderation and care rotate between members every three months, so no one carries them indefinitely. At each quarterly review, any work we relied on that is not on this list is either added as a category or turned into a rotating duty.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Contribution Recognition Mechanism
How do we keep track of and recognise contributions — and what, if anything, does recognition unlock?
RCOS clauses 5.2.2, 5.2.5
Why pin down how recognition actually works?
Without a defined mechanism, "who gets credit" becomes a matter of who is loudest or closest to whoever decides. Specifying what qualifies, how it's recorded, who validates, and how to dispute it turns recognition into something a member can actually rely on — and blocks recognition from silently mutating into governance influence.
How to fill this in
State what qualifies, how recognitions are recorded, who validates, what they unlock (or do not unlock), and how members dispute a record.
- What qualifies: <which activities count, and at whose declaration.>
- How contributions are recorded: <structured channel; informal/self-reported channel.>
- Who validates: <automatic / role holder / nomination process.>
- Effect on access/privileges: <recognition affects internal-unit balance only; does not grant additional governance rights beyond the membership state.>
- Dispute: <window and process for contesting a record.>
What to cover
- How is a contribution recorded or acknowledged, and by whom?
- Who may confirm a record? (Contesting one is its own question.)
- Does recognition give any benefits, responsibilities or access to shared resources?
- How do we make sure recognition never gives extra say in decisions beyond what the Decision Matrix grants?
Examples
Members log their own contributions on the shared sheet within a week, and the task lead or any other member confirms them. Confirmed contributions count towards the monthly participation minimum and give priority when booking the guest room. They never give extra votes, a veto or a stronger voice in any decision.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Internal Units
If we use our own credits or hours, who issues them and what can they be used for?
RCOS clauses 5.2.4, 5.2.5
Why define internal units this precisely?
Internal units tend to grow powers no one voted for — decay, caps, transferability, governance weight — unless each property is nailed down in writing. Listing issuance, transfer rules, privacy, and explicit non-governance status makes the units tools of recognition rather than quiet shadow currencies.
How to fill this in
If your community uses internal units (XP, ECO, credits, etc.), define each unit's purpose, issuance, transferability, decay, cap, fraud prevention, and privacy. Explicitly state that units do not grant governance rights beyond the membership state.
| Property | <Unit A> | <Unit B> |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | <...> | <...> |
| Issuance | <...> | <...> |
| Transferability | <...> | <...> |
| Expiration / decay | <...> | <...> |
| Hard cap | <...> | <...> |
| Fraud prevention | <...> | <...> |
| Privacy | <...> | <...> |
> Internal units do not grant governance rights beyond what the membership state defines.
What to cover
- Do we use any units of our own (hours, credits, points)? If not, say so — and what would we need to agree before introducing one?
- For each unit: what is it for, who issues it, for what, and how much?
- Can a unit be given, traded or sold to someone else — and if so, between whom?
- Does a unit expire, lose value over time, or stop at a maximum? (Whether that is enough to stop anyone steering everything is its own question.)
- How do we prevent fake or mistaken entries, how is a wrong balance corrected, and where does someone go if they disagree with theirs?
- Who can see each person's balance and transactions — everyone, only the holder, or a named role?
Examples
We use one unit, the work hour. The work-hour coordinator logs one hour for each hour of shared work signed off by that task's lead; hours cannot be given, traded or sold. Hours expire 24 months after they are earned, and no one may hold more than 200. Each member sees their own balance and all transactions without names; the coordinator corrects mistakes within a week, and anyone who disagrees with their balance uses our process for disputed economic records.
We do not use any internal credits, hours or points. Before introducing one, full members must agree what it is for, how it is issued, whether it can be transferred, when it expires, how mistakes are corrected and who can see balances, as an amendment to this protocol.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Accumulation Constraints
What stops one person accumulating enough to steer everything — and how would we notice?
RCOS clauses 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.4, 5.6.4
- 5.4.1 Internal economic systems MUST prevent unbounded concentration of internal influence or control through resources, credits, or financial obligations.
- 5.4.2 If internal units exist, the community MUST define one or more accumulation-limiting mechanisms, which MAY include:
- 5.4.3 Economic mechanisms MUST NOT allow members to bypass governance authority boundaries defined in Layer 2, including through purchasing influence, creating dependency, or converting economic power into informal decision authority.
- 5.4.4 The community MUST define reviewable indicators of economic concentration risk and an explicit mechanism to adjust constraints when such risks are detected.
- 5.6.4 Economic mechanisms MUST prevent indefinite concentration of internal influence.
Why constrain accumulation at all?
Any internal unit that can pile up without limit eventually becomes leverage — a few members with large balances gain informal sway the governance system never granted them. Stating accumulation rules explicitly, even when the current rule is "none yet," keeps the question open and forces a visible decision before concentration becomes a structural problem.
How to fill this in
State the current accumulation rule (cap, decay, none) and the rule that no internal unit may be converted into governance authority.
- <Hard cap on internal units, if any.>
- <Decay rule, if any.>
- <Internal units cannot be converted into governance authority or used to bypass the Decision Matrix.>
What to cover
- What limits how much of any unit, resource or claim on the community one person can build up — a cap, expiry, no transfers, redistribution, or a time limit?
- How do we make sure no one turns money, credits, loans or favours into extra say — by buying influence, making others depend on them, or going around the Decision Matrix?
- What signs would tell us influence is gathering in a few hands, who checks them, and how often?
- When a sign shows up, who may tighten the limits, and through which decision?
Examples
No member may hold more than 100 credits, and unused credits expire after 18 months. Credits, loans to the community and donations never give anyone extra votes, a veto, or any say beyond what the Decision Matrix grants. Twice a year the finance steward reports the largest single credit balance and the largest amount the community owes any one member. If any member is at the cap or is owed more than €5,000, the next members' meeting reviews these limits and may tighten them by vote.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
External Income Interfaces
How does money from outside reach us, and on what terms?
RCOS clauses 5.3.2
- 5.3.2 Income sources and any external income interfaces MUST be explicitly defined.
Why require approval before money arrives?
Once funds are in hand, the conversation shifts from "should we accept this?" to "what do we do with it?" — and the conditions attached to the income (grant terms, partnership obligations, service commitments) are often already locked in. Requiring a Strategic decision before any new income channel opens keeps the community in control of what it takes on.
How to fill this in
List current declared income channels, name potential future channels, and require Strategic approval before any new channel is opened.
- <Current income channels.>
- <Potential future income channels.>
- <Rule: any new external income interface must be declared and approved via a Strategic decision before funds are received or commitments made.>
What to cover
- Through which channels does money from outside reach us today, and which might we open in future — or refuse outright?
- What must be decided before a new channel opens, and may anyone accept money or promise anything before that decision?
- What conditions attached to outside money — reports, branding, promises about how we work — must members see before saying yes?
Examples
Money from outside reaches us through course fees and one foundation grant; in future we may consider renting out rooms or selling produce, but we will not take money from advertisers. No new income channel may be opened, and no one may accept funds or promise anything to a funder or customer, until full members approve it by a Strategic decision after seeing its full terms, including any reporting duties or conditions on how we work.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Dispute Resolution for Economic Records
When someone says the record of their contribution is wrong, how is that settled?
RCOS clauses 5.5.3
- 5.5.3 The Internal Economy Protocol MUST define, at minimum:
Why time-box economic disputes?
Contribution and balance records accumulate fast; if disputes could be raised indefinitely, the ledger would never settle and every historical credit would stay contestable. A defined window with a named resolver and an appeal path gives members a real chance to correct errors without leaving the whole economic history perpetually unstable.
How to fill this in
State the dispute window, named resolver, and appeal path. Reference the Contribution Recognition Mechanism for the full process.
<Window for contesting a contribution record or balance; named resolver; appeal path to Full Members via the governance process.>
What to cover
- How long after a contribution record or balance is entered can someone contest it?
- Who settles a disputed record — and who steps in if that person is involved?
- How is a correction made: is the original kept and a new entry added, and who is told?
- If someone disagrees with the outcome, where can they appeal, and when is the matter closed?
Examples
Any member can contest a contribution record or balance within 60 days of it being entered by writing to the records steward. The records steward, or another steward if the records steward is involved, decides within 21 days and writes down the reasons. Corrections are added as new entries and the original is never deleted. Either side may appeal to the next full members' meeting, whose decision is final.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Ratification Record
- Adopted: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- Decision type: Strategic
- Version: <version>
- Decision record: <link to decision record>