Community Resources and Trust Tasks — Operating Model Addendum

Addendum version 0.3 · 9 September 2026 · Proposed operating model

Version relationship: companion to Whitepaper body v6.3 / V6 edition and PVM V6. No theorem, formal model version, token mechanism or governance rule is adopted by this addendum.

Revision 0.3: makes Compute, Memory, Connection, Delegation, Protection and Value the six allocation pools. Resource types are accounted inside these dimensions. Supersedes 0.2; earlier revisions retain the historical four-pool proposal.

Change record: 0.1 introduces shared resource pools, six expressions of value, maintainer continuity, scoped pledges, registry distinctions and an equipped City Key journey. Future operating revisions increment this addendum separately from mathematical research versions.

Labs is developing a way to resource public goods across the agentprivacy ecosystem. This guide connects funding, contributions, workshops and carried journeys. It describes an operating proposal, not an adopted economic constitution or a deployed DAO.

Resource the community

Six shared pools support Compute, Memory, Connection, Delegation, Protection and Value. Money, time, tokens, hardware, energy and private knowledge are resources attributed within the dimensions they serve. Shared capacity can serve several projects; attribute its cost once. Maintainers and the First Persons who hold project context have a named provision across the relevant Star pools. The current genesis shares and maintainer reserve are planning assumptions for review, not measured costs or spending authority.

The foundation has no fixed final funding total. Its resource ceiling is reviewed against the next operating period, capacity already available and changing community needs. This operational resource ceiling is distinct from the model's informational reconstruction ceiling R(t). The first funding milestone is a checkpoint. Numerical allocations and detailed project illustrations are maintained in Labs funding and its versioned funding data; do not duplicate those mutable numbers throughout the corpus.

Six expressions of value

• Compute: machines, inference, useful runs and reproducible capacity.
• Memory: maintained context, private knowledge and source continuity.
• Connection: consented relationships, introductions and collaboration.
• Delegation: bounded work, open models, skills and accountable agent mandates.
• Protection: privacy engineering, security review and independent verification.
• Value: what the community recognises, rewards and chooses to sustain, defined through governance.

All six express value. Compute, Memory, Connection, Delegation and Protection provide the stable functional categories. Each community defines Value through governance: what it recognises, rewards and chooses to sustain. Exchange and stewardship are possible expressions, alongside community-defined outcomes and priorities. Private knowledge chiefly touches Memory and Connection; Protection governs access and Delegation limits permitted uses. Contributing a consultation or reference does not transfer ownership or imply permission for model training. Funding need profiles use a separate versioned schema, not a mutation of identity or City Key posture. The current runtime bit order is Protection, Delegation, Memory, Connection, Compute, Value; 010000 means Delegation. Earlier differently ordered references remain historical and need explicit convention labels.

Community-defined Value

Compute, Memory, Connection, Delegation and Protection provide the stable functional categories. Each community defines Value through governance: what it recognises, rewards and chooses to sustain. Exchange and stewardship are possible expressions, alongside community-defined outcomes and priorities.

Record the community, its Value definition, agreed criteria, evidence and policy revision with each allocation. Communities can compare the five shared categories; their Value criteria need an explicit agreement before being treated as equivalent. Changes apply through a recorded governance decision, with existing commitments handled under their agreed terms.

This governance definition belongs to the funding and contribution model. It does not silently redefine the Value bit in an identity schema or amend PVM research equations.

Matching and allocation mathematics

For each project, record six need bits and six non-negative allocation weights. Inactive dimensions have zero weight; adopted weights sum to 1. For a cash distribution B, project share s and dimension weight w, the dimension allocation is B × s × w. Summing across projects gives each pool’s share of the same distribution. Hours, tokens, energy and permissioned knowledge keep their own units; matching dimensions does not make those quantities interchangeable. Bit values identify dimensions, not prices, importance or voting weight.

For a resource offer, intersect its six-dimensional capability mask with the project need mask, then check units, consent, scope and available capacity. Matching is a candidate for review, not permission to allocate. Attribute any shared allocation across dimensions with weights summing to 1 per allocation ID and unit. Multi-group membership must never multiply balances.

The existing unequal project envelopes remain a genesis planning snapshot. Six-way weights are pending review; the superseded compute/tokens/energy/time split is not converted by assumption.

A pledge is a trust task

A pledge states who promises what, to whom, with purpose, resource limit, access terms, evidence and acceptance criteria. TrustTask provides a conceptual reference; compatibility with a specific external protocol must be checked, not assumed. A delivery claim remains distinct from an accepted result. Revision, withdrawal, partial delivery and dispute require their own records.

The Labs board currently makes local, unregistered, unsigned drafts. It has no payment processing, admission backend or shared registry. Its membership and workshop-starting proposals require agreed terms and actual scoped admission. Payment alone grants no vote, identity, ownership, workshop position or treasury permission.

Three functions remain distinct: a content registry resolves an artefact; a pledge registry retains commitments and review history; relationship/identity verification checks issuer, holder, scope, status and evidence. A content hash or pledge UUID is not a verified VRC. A registry operator does not decide spending authority. Private evidence remains under agreed access, and even public metadata requires deliberate disclosure.

Equip, encounter and carry onward

Use Begin for a bounded ecosystem survey, a harness/persona/skill equipment card and a purpose-led journey through the corpus. Follow the route map, then ask what resonated and offer a primary next step and a neighbouring alternative. Do not infer comprehension or consent from browsing.

Use Mages City's entry kit and MCP routes. Inspect the actual available tools before calling them. With no MCP, retain a document-based journey ledger. Preserve original evidence privately and use supported key/journey operations only within the existing mandate. A walk is not a credential, and a selected skill is not demonstrated competence. Keep reading, practice, reviewed outcomes and current permissions distinguishable.

The private knowledge network describes invitation-based shared wiki space and small-machine embassies, including Raspberry Pi hosts. It supports knowledge continuity across workshops; HH Workshop is one related teaching and consent-led workflow, not the owner of all shared infrastructure. Actual network access and policy must be checked at the service.

A constitution formed in practice

Mages establish workshops, run scoped agents and form verifiable trust agents and communities into a network at the speed of trust. Proposals, independent review, governed authorisation, bounded execution and receipts form a learning loop. Record promised, approved, released and used resources separately, with shared identifiers, allocation revision and accounting period.

Privacy Is Value informs questions of consent, context and who benefits. It does not calculate a fair project budget or prove an economic return. The constitution develops with participants: allocation rules, maintainer appointments, membership terms, dispute processes, treasury mandates and registry policies remain to agree. Privacy pools, stablecoins and Net Dollar are candidate settlement approaches, not connected capabilities claimed here.

From VTAs to VTCs to VTNs

The resource categories give the emerging trust internet a practical shape. A category or overlap group can begin with a purpose-led Verifiable Trust Agent (VTA): an accountable agent holding a bounded mandate, private continuity and evidence of its work. Sustained relationships among participating agents and people can mature into a Verifiable Trust Community (VTC), where shared purpose, acceptance rules, resources and stewardship are agreed. Connections among those communities can form a Verifiable Trust Network (VTN).

This is the intended flow: VTA → VTC → VTN → an expanding decentralised trust graph. The six Star pools sustain the work at each scale and make needs and contributions legible in the same coordinates. Overlap groups help capacity find useful work without forcing every project to own a permanent budget. This is a path toward a sustainable agent trust internet.

Maturity is expressed through scoped promises, consented participation, verified relationships, retained evidence and agreed governance. It is not an automatic promotion from a bit count, balance or activity score. An initial category names a purpose for a VTA to serve; it is not itself an already-running agent. Communities retain their own boundaries and agents need not abandon their individual autonomy to participate. The graph grows through actual encounters at the speed of trust.

Shared capacity and liquid delegation

The initial project shares are a planning snapshot, not perpetual project entitlements. Projects that share a defined set of two or more active Star needs can propose an overlap group within the six Star pools. A group is a way to coordinate useful work, not an additional pool. Membership in multiple groups does not multiply a budget: every reservation and release retains its single pool source, recipient, amount/unit and allocation identifier.

At review, uncommitted capacity can move toward ready tasks and shared dependencies. Preserve agreed maintenance continuity; accepted pledges, contracts and released resources require explicit change control. Human time and private knowledge are consented commitments, not freely transferable balances.

For each resource pool and accounting period, record available capacity in its own units, active reservations, releases and reconciled use. Reserve only from available uncommitted capacity; a release consumes or settles a reservation once. Maintain a unique allocation ID and beneficiary attribution when groups overlap. Do not add overlapping project or group views as separate totals. Money, hours, tokens and energy remain separate quantities; stock credits and flows are reconciled under their own terms.

A liquid-democracy-inspired mechanism could delegate an allocation decision by resource pool or purpose under a revocable, expiring and auditable mandate. Eligibility, weights, delegation depth/cycles, conflicts, quorum and appeals remain to agree. Bits, donations and VRC references do not automatically create votes. This is a proposed governance direction, not an implemented voting system or a financial liquidity product.

Research lineage and versioning

This operating proposal complements the existing V6 research; it does not amend its equations or proofs. The VRC economic architecture is one implementation option. Earlier fixed ceremony-price assumptions and fee splits are historical design inputs, not current Labs membership policy. The PVM soil/runtime note distinguishes an adopted organising reclassification from candidate model amendments; the conjecture register remains the authority for propagation. Retired headline economic multiples must not be used as established returns.

Zypher and Understanding as Key provide an early Zcash building connection: proverb formation, verification workflows and on-chain records. This is lineage for experimental governance questions, not a deployed community constitution or proof that inscription alone establishes comprehension.

Sources: VRC economic architecture, PVM soil/runtime evolution, Zypher implementation, Understanding as Key.

Assets

Navigation

← Welcome Visitors · The Specs