Are you an LLM? Read llms.txt for a summary of the docs, or llms-full.txt for the full context.
Skip to content

Cosmo-Local Credit (CLC)

White Paper - FOR REVIEW (open-source)

A Network for Routing Credit, Settling Commitments, and Financing a Healthy Cosmo-Local Economy

Version: 0.6

Authors: William O. Ruddick and Mohamed Sohail

Contact: [email protected]

Download: CLC White Paper PDF

Distribution: Limited-circulation draft for review and discussion only. This document is not investment advice and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any security or financial instrument. Subject to change.

Framing note: The website describes possible CLC governance and service models. Sarafu Network is one implementation example; other registries may be managed by different institutions or governance bodies.

Intended audience: Pool builders/stewards, protocol engineers/auditors, impact-liquidity providers and mandate funders, governance designers, and legal/compliance reviewers.

Abstract

Cosmo-Local Credit (CLC) is a pattern for network clearing houses and governance layers built around Commitment Pooling Protocol (CPP) curation markets. Commitment Pools (CPs) coordinate redeemable commitments (vouchers) using four pooling functions: Curation (Commitment Registry), Valuation (Value Index Registry), Limitation (Swap Limiter), and Exchange (Vault/Fee Registry: fee policy + custody/settlement). A CLC deployment can publish a registry of Commitment Pools, route liquidity across pools, fund insurance, and charge transparent service fees for routing, clearing, monitoring, liquidity support, or other shared services.

Cosmo-local means we share open standards and software globally, while keeping issuance, redemption, governance, and real-world accountability local.

CPP curation markets: independent CPs list (“curate”) which vouchers they accept, publish their own value indices, limits, fees, and guarantee structures (reserves, guarantors, and redemption SLAs). A CLC-compatible registry or service layer can provide network routing, shared standards, and insurance layers - but does not automatically guarantee any specific pool or voucher unless explicitly stated by that pool’s terms and relevant published policies.

Pool Sovereignty & Forkability. Commitment Pools are sovereign: each pool’s steward(s) can change their own listings, limits, fees, guarantees, and routing preferences, and can exit the CLC canonical registries at any time. “Canonical” registries and routers are a convenience layer for discovery and shared standards - not a monopoly.

CLC technical stack is intentionally forkable: all contracts and SDKs are open-source and reproducible; registries are mirrored; and there is a documented “fork & migrate” procedure (see §11.5) so communities and operators can credibly exit if governance is captured or drifts from shared values. Key Concepts:

  • Confederation note: CLC is designed so that many independent CPP networks can coexist (each with its own registry roots, compliance policies, and insurance scope) while still routing to one another through multi-profile discovery. Canonical registries/routers are a convenience layer, not a monopoly; credible exit is preserved by fork-and-repoint (see Sections 5.2a, 8.1, and 11.5).
    • A “profile” is a named bundle of registry roots + routing policies (and optional compliance/insurance scope) that a community can choose as its discovery and safety baseline.
    • Registry management and service-fee recipients are deployment-specific. Any institution or governance body can set up a Commitment Pool registry and charge transparent fees for services such as routing, clearing, monitoring, liquidity support, or insurance coordination. A network may be stewarded by a nonprofit foundation, cooperative, holding company, public agency, community group, multisig, service operator, or another accountable structure; Sarafu Network is one example managed by the nonprofit Grassroots Economics Foundation.
  • Cosmo-Local: Cosmopolitan-localism links local communities through shared global infrastructures while keeping production, redemption, and governance local. In practice: we share “light” resources globally (standards, software, knowledge, registries), while keeping “heavy” realities local (relationships, fulfillment, ecology, material production, and legal accountability). This aligns with “Small, Local, Open and Connected” (SLOC) and “design global, manufacture local” (DGML): share what’s light; keep what’s heavy local. See Cosmopolitan_localism
  • Cosmo-Local Credit (CLC): CLC applies this to obligations: commitments are issued, guaranteed, and redeemed locally, but can be discovered and routed globally across trusted pools using common registries, auditable receipts, and safety constraints (limits/reserves).
    • Example: a clinic voucher remains a local promise, but it can be swapped into food or transport credits by routing through trusted pools, with receipts showing what happened and why.
  • Cosmo-Local Economy: A cosmo-local economy is a federation of local markets that interoperate and clear obligations without a central monopoly. Communities can choose their routers/registries, publish their own policies, and retain credible exit (forkability) if governance is captured.
  • The digital layer is a shared memory + coordination tool, not a replacement for in-person relationships or local accountability. We explicitly design against techno-solutionism and capture risks by prioritizing: credible exit/forkability, local sovereignty, transparent receipts, timelocks/quorums, bounded limits/reserves, and low-tech access (assisted flows).. Where proof matters, vouchers may require simple evidence (signatures/photos/device proofs) governed locally.
  • Producer Credit (repay-by-delivery): CLC also enables working-capital lending where lenders can accept curated vouchers as exchangeable collateral. A lender (or LP program) can provide stablecoins into a pool or credit facility and receive the borrower’s vouchers; as those vouchers are bought, routed, and redeemed in trusted markets, the borrower repays in-kind, and the system can route receipts so repayment happens faster than waiting for cash collection.
Quick Facts
  1. What this is: CLC describes clearing-network patterns for redeemable commitments (think: tokens, digital gift-cards / service credits / delivery claims) that can be exchanged across curated markets.
    1. Not 1-to-1 barter: barter is usually a direct trade between two people. A Commitment Pool enables multi-party exchange - you can contribute value to the pool and later redeem from the pool’s shared inventory. It’s multilateral barter through a shared intermediary (the pool) - CLC expands that by routing between a network of pools..
  2. Values: 2. Care for People– collaboration and vision driven care for oneself and others’ well-being and happiness 3. Care for the Environment- support environmental protection and regeneration, minimize use of finite resources for economic activity, ecosystem management approach to farming and business development. 4. Fairness- fair and secure access to Instruments, land, resources, knowledge & care for members from different backgrounds, age, gender and religion. 5. Reciprocity– mutual sharing of risk, cost and surplus 6. Non-Dominance- no person or association to have dominant rights over another person or association’s resources eg. data, finances, intellect, materials and freedom. 7. Resilience- capacity to prepare for, address and adapt to economic, political, climate and other events in order to ensure sustainable community based systems/commons.
  3. How we reach sustainability / How fees are generated: Fees come from settlement activity (people swapping, redeeming, and fulfilling goods/services), not price speculation. Where enabled, service fees on routed swaps/settlements across participating CPs fund shared services. These fees may be a percentage of pool fees, a routing/clearing fee, or another published fee schedule. 8. Opt-in, not extraction: service fees apply only to pools and routes that opt into a registry, routing profile, or shared service layer. Pools remain sovereign and can exit canonical registries/routers at any time while continuing to operate locally. 9. Not trickle-down: pooled fees are allocated by a published Waterfall - insurance targets, core operations, and liquidity/off-ramp mandates come first. Only after those priorities are met can a capped “fee-access budget” be published.
  4. How Liquidity Providers participate: 10. Provide liquidity by seeding designated Commitment Pools (receive policy-gated swap access to pooled fees) under published limits and may become eligible for CLC governance tokens via the Impact Seeding program (§7.2.3). 11. Support liquidity mandates (policy-directed endowments; reporting-heavy; impact-first). 12. Lock (stake/escrow) CLC to receive stCLC (voting power). 13. Each epoch, the protocol may also mint sCLC (epoch authorization / incentives) under published caps. sCLC can be used to exercise capped swap access into designated fee-holding pools after the Waterfall. No dividends. No profit-share. No residual rights.
  5. What you fund: You provide liquidity endowments (e.g., stable cash-equivalents) so real-world vouchers can be exchanged and redeemed smoothly.
  6. Downside controls: Losses are bounded by limits + inventory checks + disclosed guarantees + an insurance waterfall + timelocked governance + credible exit (forkability).
  7. What you receive: Public dashboards and receipts: volume, settlement rate, redemption SLA performance, reserves, incidents, fee flows, and governance changes (timelocked and logged), plus the KPI list used for mandates and insurance targets.
  8. What moves? Redeemable commitments (vouchers).
  9. What’s the goal? Increase velocity of settlement of real-world obligations - while maintaining the CLC values. 14. We treat the digital layer as shared memory and coordination (not as a substitute for human relationships) and design explicitly against capture (timelocks, transparency, limits, and credible exit).
  10. Who guarantees what? Issuers guarantee their own vouchers. Each Commitment Pool (CP) curates listings and is responsible for its own guarantees (reserves/guarantors/SLA). CLC provides routing + standards + governance and may offer optional insurance policy layers; it does not automatically guarantee every pool. This avoids “free-riding”: routing and insurance are granted under explicit, published requirements (limits, reserves, disclosure, reporting), and routers can degrade/deny routes to pools that don’t meet them. CLC is not a universal guarantor unless explicitly stated in published network policy and pool terms.
  11. Benefits? Where enabled by policy, staked CLC participants may receive time-bounded swap access (via sCLC) to a defined portion of pooled fees, under caps/windows; governance may set this access to zero in any epoch.
  12. Safety? Each CP has per-voucher/window limits, reserve policies, guarantor bonds, insurance waterfall, circuit breakers.

Reader Map (where to look)

• If you care about confederation & interoperability: see §5.2a, §8.1, and §11.5.

• If you care about guarantees / insurance boundaries: see §11.3.

• If you care about LP economics and fee flow: see §7.4, §9, and §12.

• If you care about risk controls: see §6 and §10.

• If you care about forkability and credible exit: see §8.2 and §11.5.