Status

Accepted

Context

The Integral system contains two fundamentally different economic models for sustaining infrastructure.

Model 1: Oscar paywall model A percentage cut is taken at point of exchange. It transfers value from users to infrastructure providers. It creates a revenue stream. It also introduces regressive dynamics.

Model 2: ITC non-transferable model Every member earns access value from participation. Not extraction. Access credits are non-transferable. No percentage is extracted at exchange. Infrastructure is funded through the broader CDS/COS/FRS governance system.

Question: Which model better serves a community building regenerative infrastructure under budget constraints?

Decision

Adopt the ITC non-transferable value model over Oscar percentage-based paywall.

Key properties:

• Access credits are non-transferable between members.
• No percentage extraction at exchange point.
• Infrastructure funding through CDS/COS/FRS governance.

Not transaction extraction.

• Deterministic, event-sourced access value calculation.
• Immutable append-only ITC ledger.

This decision defers implementation to Phase 2 (when COS/ITC/FRS become available). The model choice is locked. Non-transferable. Governance-funded. Event-sourced.

Options Considered

Option	Model	Key Property
Oscar paywall	Percentage at exchange	Transferable cut, revenue extracted at transaction
ITC non-transferable	Event-sourced access value	Non-transferable credits, no extraction at exchange
Subscription	Fixed recurring fee	Transferable, predictable revenue, barrier to entry
Donation	Voluntary contribution	Non-binding, unpredictable revenue

Positive

• Structurally non-extractive economic model.
• Prevents accumulation and winner-take-all dynamics.
• Immutable audit trail via event sourcing.
• Governance controls infrastructure funding.

Negative

• Requires full Integral stack (Phase 2+).

Cannot implement in Phase 1.

• More complex than percentage extraction.
• Deterministic formula approach may have edge cases.

Risks

• ITC ledger not yet implemented.

This is a spec-only decision until Phase 2.

• Access value formula complexity may require iterative refinement.
• Non-transferable model may face resistance from members accustomed to extractive systems.

Oscar Paywall — Problems Identified

Problem 1: Regressive extraction A percentage at exchange means active participants pay more the more they use the system. Those with lower transaction volumes subsidize infrastructure costs equally. This is regressive.

Problem 2: Transferable credits enable accumulation If credits can transfer, early adopters or those with more resources can accumulate credits. This creates winner-take-all dynamics. Explicitly rejected in ITC spec 1.04.

Problem 3: Revenue stream does not equal sustainability Percentage cuts can create dependency on transaction volume. If volume drops, revenue drops. Infrastructure requires stable funding. Not volume-dependent extraction.

Problem 4: Incompatible with gift economy Regenerative communities often operate on non-extractive principles. Percentage extraction at exchange is structurally extractive. Regardless of stated intent.

ITC Non-Transferable Model — Benefits

Benefit 1: Non-transferable access value "Access credits never transfer between members" (ITC spec 1.04). This prevents accumulation and wealth concentration.

Benefit 2: Event-sourced auditability Every state change produces an immutable append-only event. The causal chain between events is preserved. No hidden adjustments.

Benefit 3: Deterministic access value formula No human assigns or adjusts access values. The formula is applied to ITC event streams deterministically. Eliminates favoritism or manipulation.

Benefit 4: Infrastructure funded through CDS/COS/FRS Rather than extracting a percentage at each exchange, the system funds infrastructure through deliberation (CDS), production workflows (COS), and monitoring (FRS). Governance controls funding. Not market extraction.

Benefit 5: Equality requirement The ITC ledger design explicitly rejects balance-sheet ledgers, double-entry accounting that obscures intent, and transferable credits. Because they "corrupt community governance."

The Core Tension

Oscar model extracts value from users to fund infrastructure. ITC model funds infrastructure through governance. Members deliberate and decide on infrastructure funding as a collective. Not as a percentage extraction.

Oscar model is easier to implement (percentage at exchange). But structurally extractive.

ITC model is harder to implement (requires full Integral stack: CDS for deliberation, COS for production workflows, FRS for monitoring). But structurally non-extractive.

References

• Integral Specification ISPEC001 — Section 1.04 ITC Ledger Architecture (Event-Sourced, Non-Transferable)
• Integral Specification ISPEC001 — Section 1.05 ITC Access Value Calculation
• ADR 0000 — OAD Workflow Grammar (context: Phase 1/2/3 gating)