Will, that's a very good analogy describing how the centralization of control of acceptable payment media (money) enable domination and eventual enslavement. The same thing has occurred throughout history in other places including Jerusalem, in which worshipers at the Jewish temple were required to use the Temple Shekel to buy the necessary sacrificial offerings. That's what led Jesus to drive out the money changers.
If people are ever to be free we must, as I put it, "reclaim the "Credit Commons"" by means of what you call "commitment pooling." The big challenge is how to do that AT SCALE in ways that are capable of operating outside of the centralized, exploitative, and destructive money system without being interfered with or captured by the would-be dominators.
Thank you, Tom ..... deep appreciation for your decades of work illuminating the credit commons and the history of monetary control. You're absolutely right: centralized control over what counts as “acceptable” value has long been a lever of domination, from temples to treasuries.
Commitment pooling, as you said, is a path to reclaim that commons ... not just conceptually, but functionally. The challenge now is not only scaling the architecture (blockchain does an amazing job of that!), but scaling the stewardship: ensuring that governance remains local, trust-based, and non-extractive even as networks interlink.
That’s why we emphasize nested autonomy ... each pool retains its own logic, while interoperating with others through transparent protocols. This creates a metabolic system that can grow without being centralized or captured.
In honor of your framing: reclaiming the credit commons isn’t just possible .... it’s remembering how we’ve always done it, and doing it again with new tools, clearer language, and renewed commitment.
Will, "ensuring that governance remains local, trust-based, and non-extractive even as networks interlink," has been part of my prescription from the very beginning. I've always been a decentralist and stressed the need for us to devolve power back to our various communities, and, as E.C. Riegel has clearly stated, we already have the "money power:" we need only recognize it and use it. That "money power" is the power to give credit to those we trust to reciprocate the value we deliver to them.
As local network nodes interlink there must be a balance between autonomy and uniformity. Agreed upon standards in allocating and managing credit can avoid a lot of potential problems and protect the network from failing; the Red Global de Trueque in Argentina is a cautionary tale about that.
Regarding technologies that enable networking in the digital age, I'm dubious about blockchain ledgers for a variety of reasons. I think better technologies are now emerging that can assure security and honesty in a system, at scale.
We're very much aligned in principle, especially with your invocation of Riegel’s insight: that "money power" lies in our mutual ability to give credit based on trust. That’s exactly the spirit behind Commitment Pooling.
As networks of local trust interlink, you’re absolutely right ... the tension between autonomy and interoperability must be carefully managed. That’s why we’re designing Commitment Pooling not as a universal currency or imposed standard, but as a protocol that communities can adapt, govern, and evolve themselves. It formalizes what many traditions already do ....... whether Minga in Colombia or Mweria in Kenya — while offering optional interoperability between groups.
Regarding your concerns about blockchain (I fully hear you). The hype around the term has obscured what is, at its best, simply a memory, authentication, and execution layer for agreements. We’re not evangelizing blockchain as a silver bullet. In fact, the Sarafu Network has been quietly working with nearly 1,000 communities worldwide using this tech not as a currency, but as a ledger of mutual commitments ... a tool to extend trust without replacing it.
And we’re not outsourcing control: Grassroots Economics runs our own validator nodes on the Celo blockchain, ensuring the infrastructure itself remains aligned with the ethics of our work. That said, we remain open to future technologies .... if something emerges that better serves secure, community-owned memory and accountability at scale, we’ll embrace it. For now, this works well and enables communities to thrive in the present. We have been programming these open source systems for around 15 years now.
Again, thank you for helping us all sharpen our shared vision ..... and I look forward to learning more from your experience and insights.
Will, that's a very good analogy describing how the centralization of control of acceptable payment media (money) enable domination and eventual enslavement. The same thing has occurred throughout history in other places including Jerusalem, in which worshipers at the Jewish temple were required to use the Temple Shekel to buy the necessary sacrificial offerings. That's what led Jesus to drive out the money changers.
If people are ever to be free we must, as I put it, "reclaim the "Credit Commons"" by means of what you call "commitment pooling." The big challenge is how to do that AT SCALE in ways that are capable of operating outside of the centralized, exploitative, and destructive money system without being interfered with or captured by the would-be dominators.
Thank you, Tom ..... deep appreciation for your decades of work illuminating the credit commons and the history of monetary control. You're absolutely right: centralized control over what counts as “acceptable” value has long been a lever of domination, from temples to treasuries.
Commitment pooling, as you said, is a path to reclaim that commons ... not just conceptually, but functionally. The challenge now is not only scaling the architecture (blockchain does an amazing job of that!), but scaling the stewardship: ensuring that governance remains local, trust-based, and non-extractive even as networks interlink.
That’s why we emphasize nested autonomy ... each pool retains its own logic, while interoperating with others through transparent protocols. This creates a metabolic system that can grow without being centralized or captured.
In honor of your framing: reclaiming the credit commons isn’t just possible .... it’s remembering how we’ve always done it, and doing it again with new tools, clearer language, and renewed commitment.
Let’s keep weaving.
Will, "ensuring that governance remains local, trust-based, and non-extractive even as networks interlink," has been part of my prescription from the very beginning. I've always been a decentralist and stressed the need for us to devolve power back to our various communities, and, as E.C. Riegel has clearly stated, we already have the "money power:" we need only recognize it and use it. That "money power" is the power to give credit to those we trust to reciprocate the value we deliver to them.
As local network nodes interlink there must be a balance between autonomy and uniformity. Agreed upon standards in allocating and managing credit can avoid a lot of potential problems and protect the network from failing; the Red Global de Trueque in Argentina is a cautionary tale about that.
Regarding technologies that enable networking in the digital age, I'm dubious about blockchain ledgers for a variety of reasons. I think better technologies are now emerging that can assure security and honesty in a system, at scale.
We're very much aligned in principle, especially with your invocation of Riegel’s insight: that "money power" lies in our mutual ability to give credit based on trust. That’s exactly the spirit behind Commitment Pooling.
As networks of local trust interlink, you’re absolutely right ... the tension between autonomy and interoperability must be carefully managed. That’s why we’re designing Commitment Pooling not as a universal currency or imposed standard, but as a protocol that communities can adapt, govern, and evolve themselves. It formalizes what many traditions already do ....... whether Minga in Colombia or Mweria in Kenya — while offering optional interoperability between groups.
Regarding your concerns about blockchain (I fully hear you). The hype around the term has obscured what is, at its best, simply a memory, authentication, and execution layer for agreements. We’re not evangelizing blockchain as a silver bullet. In fact, the Sarafu Network has been quietly working with nearly 1,000 communities worldwide using this tech not as a currency, but as a ledger of mutual commitments ... a tool to extend trust without replacing it.
And we’re not outsourcing control: Grassroots Economics runs our own validator nodes on the Celo blockchain, ensuring the infrastructure itself remains aligned with the ethics of our work. That said, we remain open to future technologies .... if something emerges that better serves secure, community-owned memory and accountability at scale, we’ll embrace it. For now, this works well and enables communities to thrive in the present. We have been programming these open source systems for around 15 years now.
Again, thank you for helping us all sharpen our shared vision ..... and I look forward to learning more from your experience and insights.