Layer 3 · Economy
1 Internal Economy Protocol
- Layer: 3 — Economic & Resource System
- Status: Stub — not yet adopted
- RCOS reference: §5.1, §5.2, §5.4, §5.5
Commons vs. Private Classification
RCOS definition5.1.1, 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.
| Resource | Classification | Steward | Access rules | Transfer constraints |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Any unclassified resource must not be allocated, encumbered, monetized, or transferred until classification is completed.
Recognized Contribution Categories
RCOS definition5.2.1, 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.
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
Contribution Recognition Mechanism
RCOS definition5.2.2, 5.2.5
- 5.2.2 The community MUST define a contribution recognition mechanism specifying:
- 5.2.5 Contribution recognition MUST NOT create implicit decision authority, veto power, or governance influence beyond what is defined in Layer 2.
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.
<What qualifies, how contributions are recorded, who validates, effect on access/privileges, and dispute process — to be defined.>
Internal Units
RCOS definition5.2.4, 5.2.5
- 5.2.4 If internal economic units are used (e.g. time credits, points, tokens), the Internal Economy Protocol MUST define:
- 5.2.5 Contribution recognition MUST NOT create implicit decision authority, veto power, or governance influence beyond what is defined in Layer 2.
Why defer internal units?
Internal units tend to grow powers no one voted for — decay, caps, transferability, governance weight — unless each property is nailed down in writing. Until a unit and its issuance, transfer, and privacy rules are ratified, recognition is handled through meeting minutes rather than an internal unit.
<Formal internal contribution-recognition unit — to be defined via future ratification.>
Any future internal unit must not grant governance rights beyond what the membership state defines (see §5.2.5).
Accumulation Constraints
RCOS definition5.4.1, 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.
<Accumulation limits and decay mechanisms — to be defined.>
External Income Interfaces
RCOS definition5.3.2
- 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.
<Current income sources and rule for approving new external income interfaces — to be defined.>
Dispute Resolution for Economic Records
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 30-day 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.
<Dispute process for contribution records and internal unit balances — to be defined.>
Ratification Record
- Adopted:
- Decision type: Strategic
- Version:
- Decision record: