Propose: No Retroactive Harm (Terms-Change Governance)

On-behalf-of: Ben Stull <ben.stull>

rfcs/exit-portability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: exit-portability
+title: Exit & Portability
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- governance
+---
+
+A platform that holds a Human's data, catalog, or balance hostage has converted convenience into a trap. This RFC defines Exit and Portability: the guarantee that a customer or merchant can leave and take what is theirs. It is the structural defense against lock-in, serving Agency.
+

rfcs/float.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: float
+title: Float
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- payments
+---
+
+Float is the pool of outstanding prepaid balances the platform holds and can earn yield on — other people's money, held in trust. This RFC defines Float with the safeguarding rule built in: the float is protected, holders are not paid interest, and it is never lent out. It serves custody and Dignity, and pairs with Platform Sustainability and Breakage.
+

rfcs/loop-classification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: loop-classification
+title: Closed- vs Open-Loop Classification
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- payments
+---
+
+Whether stored value is clean store credit or a regulated money-transmission instrument turns on a single line: does value move only among commonly-owned storefronts, or between unaffiliated owners? This RFC defines that closed- versus open-loop classification, keyed to common ownership rather than storefront count. It documents the regulatory line the two-tier model rests on — it does not clear it, which remains a legal matter for counsel.
+

rfcs/no-retroactive-harm.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: no-retroactive-harm
+title: No Retroactive Harm (Terms-Change Governance)
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- governance
+---
+
+Humans park real money and accept terms under a particular set of rules; changing those rules on balances they have already loaded is a retroactive harm. This RFC defines the governance guarantee that the deal cannot be changed out from under existing balances and commitments. It ties Temporality and Informed Consent into a binding constraint, and it is load-bearing precisely because of stored value.
+

rfcs/recourse-dispute.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: recourse-dispute
+title: Recourse & Dispute Resolution
+state: super-draft
+id: null
+repo: null
+proposed_by: ben.stull@wiggleverse.org
+proposed_at: '2026-06-01'
+graduated_at: null
+graduated_by: null
+owners:
+- ben.stull
+arbiters: []
+tags:
+- governance
+---
+
+An ethical platform is defined as much by what happens when things go wrong as by its happy path. This RFC defines Recourse: how a wronged Human — buyer or merchant — actually obtains a remedy, and by what fair process. It serves Dignity and fairness, building on the Commercial Relationship.
+