…. One more nuance: this isn’t just “substituting vouchers for cash.” Done properly, it frees up cash by moving a big share of everyday exchange (rides, repairs, food, basic services) onto redeemable commitments, so scarce cash can be reserved for the things that must be paid in cash (fuel, rent, school fees, meds). In that sense the settlement rail reduces cash pressure at the margin—as long as we keep hard caps, redemption stress tests, and conservative liquidity policies on stable assets so the system doesn’t pretend everything is instantly cash-convertible.
This framing nails it: not alternative money, but liquidity engineering. Shift everyday exchange off cash so scarce cash is reserved for true cash-demand boundaries.
In agent networks and humanitarian cash systems, that’s the real value, protecting the settlement rail, not replacing it. Hard caps, stress tests, and the ability to pause are the difference between resilience and fragility.
Totally agree on the failure mode you’re pointing at: if this is just “liquidity offload,” the system snaps the moment people need fuel, rent, school fees … cash demand comes roaring back.
Two quick clarifications though:
“African agent networks” is a bit too broad (the continent is huge and these dynamics show up everywhere). The underlying issue is universal: cash necessities create redemption pressure.
The whole reason we’re building this as protocol + curation markets (not a feel-good marketplace) is to make it a settlement rail, not just a distribution channel. That means:
Hard caps / windowed limiters on issuance and swap-out per voucher and per pool (to prevent runs)
Redemption stress tests and conservative valuation before listing
Pauses/delistings when redemption performance drops
Clear “cash-demand boundaries”: we don’t pretend everything can settle locally… so pools are designed to keep stable assets scarce and priced, not “freely convertible.”
So yes: without caps and stress tests it breaks under shock (as we see the current interedt based system brraking apart daily). That’s why those controls are core to the architecture, and why curation (who/what gets listed, at what limits) is as important as the swapping itself.
Spot on again, for me the key of this paradigm shift is '... from cash-first to capacity-first.'
IMHO: Modern conventional Interest is kind of a misnomer—it feels more like dis-Interest, because as economies scaled, trust between people did not. From collective capacity-first, Interest got stranded into anonymous cash-first individualism.
The Sarafu.Network + CosmoLocal.Credit combo, can reverse this unfortunate mishap, reclaiming that lost sense of Trust, giving it a chance to scale up properly, and positioning as the model’s foundational collateral asset.
Ruddick’s secret sauce is Trust; a priceless commodity, absurdly made scarce.
This essay was transformational for me. Prior to this, it seemed like Grassroots Economics was all about grassroots entrepreneurs. You could include mutual aid systems, rotating labor systems, etc., which is awesome, but it was hard to see how it moves from the grass at the village level to the exclusionary forest of automobile factories, real estate corporations, big banks and big pharma etc.
On the other hand, you have groups like Mondragon and Platform Cooperatives which really have accomplished that move into the big industry forest. But it is not clear how these singular, worker-owned trees affect anything beyond their own cooperatives (impressive though they are!).
I am not saying cosmo-local credit is some sort of silver bullet that solves all issues. But its a really cool example of what are probably many possible means for chipping away at the wealth concentration in the exclusionary forest, and mulching some of that deadwood for the benefit of the grassroots.
Perhaps the massive physical barriers to big factories like cars and pharma is just too difficult to take on right now. But maybe a good next step would be using Sarafu to launch a worker-owned Uber? Sarafuber? For a real-world example of the barriers see “Driving Economic Justice: Cooperative Taxis in San Diego.” https://ia600700.us.archive.org/23/items/DrivingEconomicJustice/UT0504_2024.pdf
.... “grassroots vs forest” framing. ... so ... it’s not enough to grow a thousand healthy blades of grass if the 'forest' (or some big ape) keeps setting the terms of access, capital, and coordination.
My hunch is that Cosmo-Local Credit (and its DAO / protocol layer) is less about becoming the next Uber/Mondragon/bank, and more about interconnection ... chamas, worker coops, platform coops, SMEs, even incumbents .... through a shared, simple clearing protocol for curated commitments. In other words: Uber is already “a market.” Savings-and-loan groups are already “a market.” The strategy isn’t to out-Uber Uber. It’s to route value across markets so that local commitments (rides, repairs, food, care) can clear obligations, refinance debt, and unlock liquidity without everyone needing to rebuild the whole stack.
Thanks for sharing the San Diego cooperative taxi case because it shows the real barriers: insurance and regulatory compliance, the cost of dispatch tech, dependence on vendors, and the way resource constraints can quietly steal agency from worker ownership. That report also shows what does work: persistent organizing + “public option” framing + contracts/public support, and they’ve already launched an operational app with real riders and drivers.
Where I think Sarafu/Cosmo-Local can add leverage is: instead of every worker-owned platform having to solve liquidity + working capital + trust + settlement from scratch, we can give them shared rails: curated pools, transparent pricing, limits, dispute processes, and a way to onboard “buyers” (merchants, institutions, municipalities) who can pre-purchase commitments or swap in approved assets .... effectively financing the cooperative’s capacity without interest, and clearing obligations through redemption.
So yes: let’s absolutely learn from platform coops .... but the bigger play is a confederated coordination layer that helps many “trees” become a forest together, without needing a single mega-entity (or some big ape) to win.
I’d love to map a concrete pathway from your example: what would it look like for a worker-owned mobility service to plug into Cosmo-Local pools for working capital, insurance support, and demand (procurement/contracts) ... while keeping governance with drivers?
And just to play that SaraFuber example out a bit more: how can we "absorb" the on-coming disruption as delivery bots and driverless cars start to invade that ecosystem? I have been really excited about the "solar irrigation" project we did with Detroit farms, adding in photovoltaics so they can do rain cachement and digitally controlled pumping (https://generativejustice.org/rain/). I could see the next step adding a delivery bot for each farm, charged up by solar. Perhaps that could be integrated with a worker-owned delivery platform.
Strong idea! In African agent networks, this works as a liquidity offload but not a settlement rail.
The minute demand hits fuel, rent, or school fees, cash returns. Without hard caps and redemption stress tests, it breaks under shock.
…. One more nuance: this isn’t just “substituting vouchers for cash.” Done properly, it frees up cash by moving a big share of everyday exchange (rides, repairs, food, basic services) onto redeemable commitments, so scarce cash can be reserved for the things that must be paid in cash (fuel, rent, school fees, meds). In that sense the settlement rail reduces cash pressure at the margin—as long as we keep hard caps, redemption stress tests, and conservative liquidity policies on stable assets so the system doesn’t pretend everything is instantly cash-convertible.
This framing nails it: not alternative money, but liquidity engineering. Shift everyday exchange off cash so scarce cash is reserved for true cash-demand boundaries.
In agent networks and humanitarian cash systems, that’s the real value, protecting the settlement rail, not replacing it. Hard caps, stress tests, and the ability to pause are the difference between resilience and fragility.
Totally agree on the failure mode you’re pointing at: if this is just “liquidity offload,” the system snaps the moment people need fuel, rent, school fees … cash demand comes roaring back.
Two quick clarifications though:
“African agent networks” is a bit too broad (the continent is huge and these dynamics show up everywhere). The underlying issue is universal: cash necessities create redemption pressure.
The whole reason we’re building this as protocol + curation markets (not a feel-good marketplace) is to make it a settlement rail, not just a distribution channel. That means:
Hard caps / windowed limiters on issuance and swap-out per voucher and per pool (to prevent runs)
Redemption stress tests and conservative valuation before listing
Inventory + reserve policies (including optional guarantors/first-loss buffers)
Pauses/delistings when redemption performance drops
Clear “cash-demand boundaries”: we don’t pretend everything can settle locally… so pools are designed to keep stable assets scarce and priced, not “freely convertible.”
So yes: without caps and stress tests it breaks under shock (as we see the current interedt based system brraking apart daily). That’s why those controls are core to the architecture, and why curation (who/what gets listed, at what limits) is as important as the swapping itself.
Spot on again, for me the key of this paradigm shift is '... from cash-first to capacity-first.'
IMHO: Modern conventional Interest is kind of a misnomer—it feels more like dis-Interest, because as economies scaled, trust between people did not. From collective capacity-first, Interest got stranded into anonymous cash-first individualism.
The Sarafu.Network + CosmoLocal.Credit combo, can reverse this unfortunate mishap, reclaiming that lost sense of Trust, giving it a chance to scale up properly, and positioning as the model’s foundational collateral asset.
Ruddick’s secret sauce is Trust; a priceless commodity, absurdly made scarce.
Grassroots vs Forest:
This essay was transformational for me. Prior to this, it seemed like Grassroots Economics was all about grassroots entrepreneurs. You could include mutual aid systems, rotating labor systems, etc., which is awesome, but it was hard to see how it moves from the grass at the village level to the exclusionary forest of automobile factories, real estate corporations, big banks and big pharma etc.
On the other hand, you have groups like Mondragon and Platform Cooperatives which really have accomplished that move into the big industry forest. But it is not clear how these singular, worker-owned trees affect anything beyond their own cooperatives (impressive though they are!).
I am not saying cosmo-local credit is some sort of silver bullet that solves all issues. But its a really cool example of what are probably many possible means for chipping away at the wealth concentration in the exclusionary forest, and mulching some of that deadwood for the benefit of the grassroots.
Perhaps the massive physical barriers to big factories like cars and pharma is just too difficult to take on right now. But maybe a good next step would be using Sarafu to launch a worker-owned Uber? Sarafuber? For a real-world example of the barriers see “Driving Economic Justice: Cooperative Taxis in San Diego.” https://ia600700.us.archive.org/23/items/DrivingEconomicJustice/UT0504_2024.pdf
.... “grassroots vs forest” framing. ... so ... it’s not enough to grow a thousand healthy blades of grass if the 'forest' (or some big ape) keeps setting the terms of access, capital, and coordination.
My hunch is that Cosmo-Local Credit (and its DAO / protocol layer) is less about becoming the next Uber/Mondragon/bank, and more about interconnection ... chamas, worker coops, platform coops, SMEs, even incumbents .... through a shared, simple clearing protocol for curated commitments. In other words: Uber is already “a market.” Savings-and-loan groups are already “a market.” The strategy isn’t to out-Uber Uber. It’s to route value across markets so that local commitments (rides, repairs, food, care) can clear obligations, refinance debt, and unlock liquidity without everyone needing to rebuild the whole stack.
Thanks for sharing the San Diego cooperative taxi case because it shows the real barriers: insurance and regulatory compliance, the cost of dispatch tech, dependence on vendors, and the way resource constraints can quietly steal agency from worker ownership. That report also shows what does work: persistent organizing + “public option” framing + contracts/public support, and they’ve already launched an operational app with real riders and drivers.
Where I think Sarafu/Cosmo-Local can add leverage is: instead of every worker-owned platform having to solve liquidity + working capital + trust + settlement from scratch, we can give them shared rails: curated pools, transparent pricing, limits, dispute processes, and a way to onboard “buyers” (merchants, institutions, municipalities) who can pre-purchase commitments or swap in approved assets .... effectively financing the cooperative’s capacity without interest, and clearing obligations through redemption.
So yes: let’s absolutely learn from platform coops .... but the bigger play is a confederated coordination layer that helps many “trees” become a forest together, without needing a single mega-entity (or some big ape) to win.
I’d love to map a concrete pathway from your example: what would it look like for a worker-owned mobility service to plug into Cosmo-Local pools for working capital, insurance support, and demand (procurement/contracts) ... while keeping governance with drivers?
And just to play that SaraFuber example out a bit more: how can we "absorb" the on-coming disruption as delivery bots and driverless cars start to invade that ecosystem? I have been really excited about the "solar irrigation" project we did with Detroit farms, adding in photovoltaics so they can do rain cachement and digitally controlled pumping (https://generativejustice.org/rain/). I could see the next step adding a delivery bot for each farm, charged up by solar. Perhaps that could be integrated with a worker-owned delivery platform.