Propose: Agency & Anti-Manipulation

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

rfcs/agency-anti-manipulation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: agency-anti-manipulation
+title: Agency & Anti-Manipulation
+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:
+- ethics
+---
+
+A Human's Agency is only real if the platform refrains from manipulating the choices it presents. This RFC draws the line between legitimate persuasion and manipulation — no dark patterns, no drip pricing, no manufactured urgency, no lock-in disguised as a reward — as a first-class commitment derived from RFC-0001's Agency. It is the most direct expression of building for humans rather than for extraction.
+

rfcs/breakage.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: breakage
+title: Breakage
+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
+---
+
+Breakage is value a Human paid for and may never receive goods against — from rounding and from dormant balances — and it is the sharpest ethics test in the entire product, because the platform profits from money the person never spent. This RFC defines Breakage in relation to the Human who is owed it, not merely as platform revenue. It serves Dignity and is bound tightly to Non-Extraction and Duty of Care.
+

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.
+

rfcs/transparency-traceability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+slug: transparency-traceability
+title: Transparency & Traceability
+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
+---
+
+Ethics that cannot be checked are just claims. This RFC defines the discipline that every operational mechanic must cite the concept RFC it serves, so the platform's behavior is auditable and traceable back to a stated human commitment. It is the spine that keeps the whole corpus honest — the answer to how 'ethical' becomes verifiable rather than asserted.
+