Skip to content
Solidarity Commons Protocol

Why This Exists

Solidarity Commons Protocol exists because civic institutions need infrastructure they can govern.

A volunteer fire department should not lose access to its own operating history when a vendor is acquired, repriced, or shut down. A tenant should not have rent set by pricing infrastructure that coordinates landlord power. A patient should not lose care because a hospital was loaded with debt. A family should not watch child care, groceries, restaurants, pet care, education, or local services become too expensive after ownership moves away from the people who depend on them.

A land trust, cooperative, fiscal host, mutual-aid network, or federation faces the same basic risk: its agreements, roles, approvals, land, data, and resource flows can become trapped inside systems the community does not control.

The Moral Test

Section titled “The Moral Test”

New York Times reporting on private equity and fire department software shows one failure mode. It is not the only one. The same enclosure pattern appears in housing, health care, child care, groceries, restaurants, pet care, airlines, education, and public infrastructure. Enclosure and Solidarity Responses collects the broader research base and the counterexamples already forming through land trusts, resident-owned communities, worker co-ops, platform co-ops, open educational resources, and public-interest rescue efforts.

Elysian Press points toward the alternative: institutions where the people who create and steward value can benefit from it.

The test is simple: when a community creates value, does that value stay accountable to members, residents, workers, and stewards, or does it leave through landlords, platforms, investors, and distant institutions?

The Practical Claim

Section titled “The Practical Claim”

Solidarity institutions need continuity. A reading circle may become a fiscally sponsored project. A project may become a nonprofit, worker co-op, community land trust, or federation member. The records need to move with the institution without pretending one app owns the institution.

The project gives institutions a common layer for authority, provenance, benefit rules, and regulated-system bridges. Read Protocol Scope for the current boundary.

The Technical Claim

Section titled “The Technical Claim”

Holochain fits where coordination is local, peer-governed, membership-bound, and validated by shared rules. ValueFlows and Holochain Resource-Event-Agent (hREA) help model economic coordination.

The protocol should hold social truth and institutional memory while external systems remain authoritative for law, payroll, banking, accounting, title, and compliance. Boundaries and Bridges names that split.

Section titled “Read Next”