A Functional Mechanism for the Commons
Commitment Pooling as a Metabolic Process for Trust, Value, and Collective Flow

In her later years, Elinor Ostrom turned her attention toward what she called the "functional mechanisms" of successful commons - moving beyond typologies of resource coordination systems, but the minimal, adaptable protocols that allowed communities to coordinate care over time. She understood that lasting institutions do not arise from control or universal rules, but from simple agreements people can adapt, revise, and renew together.
The Commitment Pool Protocol offers exactly this: a simple, generalizable structure that allows any group to exchange, limit, and track value as relational trust.
At its heart, the Commitment Pooling protocol says:
“Here are the kinds of commitments we accept (curation),
This is how we value them in relation to each other (valuation),
Here’s how many we can hold (limitation),
And this is how we seed or swap them (exchange).”
That’s all.
Yet within that minimal frame lies a profound capability: the ability to coordinate across difference, across time, and without central control. This is not an economic model in the traditional sense — it is a functional mechanism for living systems (think metabolic).
It can work as, a social ledger among neighbors, a ritual contract between stewards of land, a programmable interface between digital agents and so many others.
It is simple enough to be done via memory or in chalk, yet expressive enough to federate regenerative economies across bio-regions.
This is what Ostrom was calling for: protocols, not prescriptions, … mechanisms that empower people to govern the commons with creativity, accountability, and care.
The Commitment Pool Protocol is a foundational framework for coordinating value exchange through shared commitments. It enables communities to seed and swap and articulate promises, such as services, resources, or certifications, under simple, adjustable and transparent rules.
This protocol does not require money, blockchain, or complex infrastructure. It operates through four basic functions: curation, valuation, limitation, and exchange. These can be implemented in any context: digital or analog, formal or informal.
It may not the simplest exchange protocol - yet it seems to be the most foundational.
If a protocol simpler or more foundational exists that can hold the weight of trust, reciprocity, and renewal — let it speak.
Like a seed contains a forest, the Commitment Pool Protocol contains the minimum viable structure for any trust-based economy: what is accepted, how it's valued, how much is enough, and how exchange flows.
The protocol acts as a basis set, a minimal set of elements from which diverse exchange ecosystems can be composed. Curation, valuation, limitation, and exchange are not rules, they are functions that express how care, trust, and value can circulate in any environment.
In computing, a “primitive” is the most reduced, expressive building block.
This protocol is a primitive of regenerative coordination — not assuming money, contracts, or code — only trust, agreements, and capacity to fulfill.
More than a ledger or a marketplace, the Commitment Pool is a pattern of promising.
It lets us surface what matters, respect boundaries, and share value without converting care into commodity.
If it is so simple .. lets go over it….
Protocol Overview!
A Commitment Pool is a agreement space for exchanging approved commitments. Each commitments represents a form of value—time, labor, goods, care, knowledge, or recognition. Commitments may be transferable or not, divisible or not, and may include logic (e.g., expiry, conditions).
The protocol defines four key functions:
1. Curation
Specifies which commitment types are accepted. This is what a pool curator values. Eg. Eddy commits to deliver eggs.
["commitment_A", "commitment_B", "commitment_C"]
2. Valuation
Assigns a relative value to each commitment.
May be fixed, oracle-driven, market-based, or curve-indexed.
Standardized commitments like USD worth of product or hours of services can simply be valued one to one.
{
"commitment_A": 1,
"commitment_B": 2,
"commitment_C": 0.5
}
3. Limitation
Sets a maximum quantity allowed per commitment in the pool. This can be like saying how much of any one commitment can go into the pool. Credit in this case is a commitments limit minus the pool’s current holding of that commitment.
{
"commitment_A": 1000,
"commitment_B": 500,
"commitment_C": 800
}
4. Exchange
Participants can seed commitment into the pool (like an endowment) or swap one commitment for another.
Swap amounts follow the valuation table and limits.
Optional fees may apply on the received commitment.
Seed Example:
{
"action": "seed",
"from": "agent_X",
"commitment": "commitment_A",
"amount": 100
}
Swap Example:
{
"action": "swap",
"from": "agent_X",
"give_commitment": "commitment_A",
"give_amount": 2,
"receive_commitment": "commitment_B"
}
Governance
A designated steward manages pool configuration:
Add or remove curated commitments
Adjust valuations, limits, or fees
Withdraw collected fees
Transfer or lock governance rights
All other participants can seed or swap curated commitments within defined rules.
Minimal Enabling Environment
For the Commitment Pool Protocol to operate effectively, even in its most primitive form, three foundational capacities must exist:
1. Memory
A shared record of commitments seeded and swapped.
Can be verbal (remembered agreements), written (ledgers), or digital (databases).
In an ancient village, elders or scribes maintained memory through storytelling or tally systems.
2. Authentication
The ability to recognize who issued or holds a commitment.
May rely on social identity (face, role, lineage) or technical keys (signatures, logins).
In a village, authentication is rooted in reputation, presence, and communal recognition.
3. Agreement Execution
A mechanism to track whether promises were fulfilled.
Based on witnessing, peer accountability, or automated systems.
In traditional societies, fulfillment is observed and honored communally, often reinforced by ritual, reputation, or elder mediation.
This minimal stack—memory, authentication, and agreement execution—enables the protocol to function without dependence on external infrastructure. It shows that trust-based coordination is ancient, universal, and adaptable.
Why It Matters
This protocol encodes the minimal conditions for shared coordination:
Universal: Supports any kind of value or commitment
Minimal: Requires only four rule types and two actions
Flexible: Works with human memory, paper, spreadsheets, or code
Trust-Based: No currency, interest, or enforcement required
Network-Ready: Pools can federate via shared commitments and rules
Memory-Paper-digital-compatible? Yes
Supports time-bound/certified commitments? Yes
Local and federated use? Yes
Steward abuse visible? Yes
Currency-independent? Yes
Programmable commitments supported? Yes
The Commitment Pool Protocol provides a clear, minimal way to exchange and coordinate value through shared trust. It is foundational for regenerative systems where commitments—not consumption—are the source of value.
Expressions of the Protocol
The Commitment Pool Protocol is not bound to one form of value or infrastructure, it can be expressed through relational dynamics in any social system. Here are examples of how it appears across domains:
1. In a Family: Access Through Certification
In a household, commitments are often unstated but deeply honored. For example:
A parent authenticates a child (“You are my child”) this certification (as a commitment of the parent) grants access to a common pool of food, care, and shelter.
These access rights are not statically priced, but they are limited (e.g., based on age, contribution, trust). i.e. the child can’t drive the car or eat everything in the house at once.
Valuation happens through shared understanding of roles.
Curation includes who belongs to the family.
The pool is implicit, but real and violations (e.g. neglect) rupture it.
2. In a Village (Mweria / ROLA): Rotational Labor Associations
Curation: The types of labor (farming, housebuilding) accepted into the rotation.
Valuation: Often fixed, 1 day of work (or equivalent effort) is 1 unit.
Limitation: No one can take more days than they contribute over time.
Exchange: Those who work today may redeem that labor later.
This is a live commitment pool where trust is accrued, and redemption is social. Note that there is a huge amount of leverage here - where one person can call on the commitments of many other people to build a house - while giving their commitment to support over time.
3. In a Business Contract: Bilateral Pool
A consultant and client form a bilateral pool.
Curation: Acceptable deliverables (e.g. research, reports).
Valuation: Expressed in money or invoice units.
Limitation: Budget cap, hours limit.
Exchange: Money for service, tracked as fulfilled commitments.
This shows how formal contracts are a specialization of the protocol. Note that ‘money’ can be considered a commitment as well and can be pooled. This is very important as we use the protocol in re-writing the underlying structure of business - into relational economies. (Bursting the bilateral … into multilateral agreements). We need a transitional mechanism out of our addiction and dependency on money (this is it).
Healing Through Connection
The real power of the Commitment Pool Protocol emerges not just in isolated communities, but in the connections between them …. when pools cascade and form rivers and streams between each-other …. networks!
Imagine - one pool holds an abundance of food commitments. Another, elsewhere, is seeking labor to restore an ecosystem. These pools don’t need a central authority or universal currency to coordinate. A trusted steward, a person, a DAO, a council, recognizes both needs (and multiple pools curate the same commitments) and routes those commitments between them. This could be done through shared commitment standards, social agreements, or even ritual acknowledgments.
This kind of mycelial routing lets surplus in one place nourish need in another (creating a metabolic process through a larger network/body).
It allows:
Trust to scale without hierarchy.
Resources to move without centralized markets.
Mutual care to circulate without extractive debt.
As these pools interlink, they form a connected commons, an economy of care, rooted in local coherence and federated through relational trust.
This is how we heal disconnection: not by imposing systems, but by weaving together the ones already alive — each a node in a network of reciprocal promise.
This is happening now. You can take part. It will get easier and easier.
Take a long look at that is forming in real time right now across the world.
Have you examined the Valueflows ontology https://valueflo.ws ?
Trust to scale without hierarchy. That is indeed the sweet spot just above the threshold of what is required Now that is indeed what is required and it is the real threshold above which a sweet spot can and must be imagined and built
https://hyp.is/0OqhRDKAEfCvxdOWhX0tCw/willruddick.substack.com/p/a-functional-mechanism-for-the-commons