Older Gitea links were shared pointing at docs/<slug>.md; the content has
since moved to docs/rfcs/<slug>.md (the rfc-app 'docs' collection). Gitea has
no per-file HTTP redirect, so replace each old file with a short stub linking
to the new repo path and the rendered RFC-app URL, so previously-shared links
still land somewhere useful.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Keep the plain, frontmatter-free memos at docs/<slug>.md (as before) in
addition to the rfc-app entry copies under docs/rfcs/. The registry mirror
reads only docs/rfcs/, so these root copies are not ingested as duplicate
entries — they're just the readable repo docs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Move the two Maker Platform memos into docs/rfcs/ with minimal entry
frontmatter (slug/title/state) and add docs/.collection.yaml (type:
document, public) so the rfc-app registry mirror surfaces them as the
'docs' collection of the new maker-collective project.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Gap-analysis pass surfaced genuine, *unacknowledged* holes in both docs.
Rather than invent legal/strategy positions, flag them as scoped open work
in the memo's §14 backlog (matching its style) and acknowledge them in the
PR-FAQ's 'what got left out' answer:
- international tax & cross-border (EU VAT/OSS, deemed-supplier, PSD2/SCA,
KYC/OFAC) — the US-only §11 has a real hole under a digital-heavy global
beachhead
- infosec & breach posture for the cross-tenant graph (belongs in the §12
funded reliability core)
- content moderation beyond authenticity (third-party IP / DMCA)
- verification *methodology* (the evidentiary act, treated as a primitive)
- support/dispute operations as a funded F-term
- competitive engagement vs creator-commerce tools (Gumroad/Payhip/Ko-fi/
Fourthwall/Lemon Squeezy)
- plus lower-priority notes (cuttle substance, catalog-sync at scale,
accessibility, certification mark, wind-down plan, team capacity)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Superset audit found two real divergences:
- the illustrative all-in fee numbers (5-7%, ~3.6%, 13-16 pts) lived only
in the PR-FAQ; port them into the memo §2/§7 so the memo stays superset
- PR-FAQ said the checkout 'enforces' the FTC 30-Day Rule; the memo is
careful that the duty is the maker's and the platform only *eases* it
(§11) — align the PR-FAQ wording
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
- headline: fix the 'Wiggleverse...Wiggleverse' stutter and lead with
plain benefit (ownership + price) instead of coined jargon; the
commit-then-make positioning stays in the lede where it's defined
- subhead: drop 'stock-then-sell' jargon for 'not just ready-made
inventory'
- replace the already-happy founding-maker quote with a
skeptic-turned-believer (Shopify maker who almost didn't switch:
federation, drops/club, earned referrals, no money touched)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Surface from the strategy memo four answers a launch reviewer expects:
- privacy/consent: 'own the buyer' = usage-rights to a *consented*
relationship (consent at checkout -> maker's ESP), two consent domains,
cross-maker graph opt-in by design, build-to-strictest-law + GDPR (§7/§11)
- the buyer's day-one journey: invisible/maker-fronted at launch, opt-in
'your makers in one place' feed at Phase 2+, never a marketplace
destination (§13)
- explicit falsifiable hypothesis + kill-criteria: dozen-maker gate, the
behavioral demand test, North Star as live kill-signal (§9/§12)
- the non-cashable wallet's stored-value posture and the cashing-out
crossing gated to Phase 2 behind a rented transmitter (§11)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
- remove the duplicated '**How big is the opportunity (TAM)?**' header
- add the 2023 baseline to the Etsy active-seller decline (~9M (2023) → ~5.6M)
so the load-bearing stat carries its timeframe (sources in memo §12)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PR-FAQ (Tier-2 reviewer gaps):
- Shopify-copies-the-tool: first-class-not-hard framing + cuttle.xyz/LLM-tool
integration headroom; 'tool is the wedge, network is the moat'
- featured maker's (B-side) consent + economics
- ballpark F (~$75-150k/yr) and the 'F is not the cloud bill' reliability core
- operational drop-time reliability (blast radius + funded core)
Referral-model evolution (PR-FAQ + memo, source-of-truth reconciled):
- platform spread stays FIXED (~3-5%, $-capped) — the network's referral
revenue line, unchanged in §12
- Maker A's reward becomes NEGOTIABLE above the spread (flat/tiered/max-$ cap,
renegotiable), floored at the spread; maker<->maker only
- per-relationship approval: B must approve being curated by A
- ranking-neutrality as a STRUCTURAL guarantee: platform ranks for conversion
but never by referral economics, credible because its spread is constant
- non-maker taste-makers keep uniform, non-biddable rates (peer-respect
counterweight absent)
Memo ports: §2 (first-class/cuttle), §7 Curated-By guardrails + Referral
economics + catalog-presence + taste-maker tier, §7 partner comp, §12 spread
+ Goodhart guardrails.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Surface from the strategy memo into the PR-FAQ four answers a launch
reviewer would expect the doc to stand on its own for:
- per-item provenance mechanism (§7/§10/§11): classes, trust-surface
eligibility, misclassification = de-verification, FTC substantiation
- trust & safety: buyer pre-order/ghosting recourse (§10/§11) and the
anti-collusion / rooted-trust-graph architecture (§7/§10)
- the episodic-campaign incumbents — Kickstarter/Gamefound/BackerKit —
via the campaign-vs-cadence distinction (Appendix B)
- replace the "X%" pricing placeholder with worked illustrative all-in
numbers; fix the imprecise "~20% more of every sale" subhead
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Complete the rename across the PR-FAQ and apply the full-name-once
convention: establish 'Wiggleverse Maker Collective' in the headline,
then 'Maker Collective' thereafter. Rewrite the naming-rationale note
to record the real decision (chosen over both 'Wiggleverse Makers' and
'Wiggleverse Market' because *collective* carries demand-aggregation /
commit-then-make and is deliberately not a marketplace word). Leave
common-noun 'maker(s)' references untouched.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PR-FAQ revisions (operator-authored): headline "Wiggleverse launches Wiggleverse
Makers"; the platform supports traditional stock-then-sell in addition to
commit-then-make ("many makers" run commit-then-make); the maker keeps their own
storefront/checkout/customers; storefront software optional / bring-your-own;
Curated-By also in email marketing; Seattle dateline; public URL
makers.wiggleverse.org; wording polish.
Strategy memo (§2): propagate the positioning — "many" makers run commit-then-make,
and the platform also handles ordinary stock-then-sell (it is a full storefront)
with commit-then-make as the differentiator ("not just stock-then-sell"); beachhead
community label aligned to "miniatures". PR-FAQ header-note URL also → makers.wiggleverse.org.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Worked-scenario table (explicitly illustrative, not validated) beneath the
parametric break-even formula: revenue by maker band (2 → 1,000) at midpoint
assumptions, broken into Pro fees / Starter % / referral spread. Reinforces the
parametric conclusions — revenue mix flips toward Pro + spread with maturity,
and break-even (~150–300 makers) sits well past the dozen-maker §9 demand gate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Break the partner-compensation model out of the "Business model" subsection into
a dedicated §7 "Partner / consultant network: onboarding the high-touch tail"
subsection. Add the money-flow clarification: the referral-income split is the
only leg the network settles (principal-on-both-sides, out of flow); any upfront
cash, setup fee, retainer, milestone, or other agreement is a direct off-platform
deal between maker and partner — the network never takes custody (custody is the
line). Tooling may record an off-network term (coordination) but never moves it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Specify the §7 "Partner / consultant network" compensation mechanism: a maker
may pay a partner a negotiated, front-loaded/tapering share of its *earned*
referral income (curator credits) for storefront stand-up + network onboarding,
with negotiation tooling. Rides existing invariants — principal-on-both-sides
(out of flow), a fourth consumer of the Phase-2 cashable rail, stateful
cumulative-tier settlement (Appendix C.5 pattern), and the curation-integrity
guardrail (no say in whom the maker vouches for). Reflect in §12 unit economics
as maker-borne activation cost / referral-activation driver, not a platform line.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Remove §12 #3 (concrete MVP scope / build roadmap) and #4 (data-model sketch):
these are implementation/rollout concerns that belong in the implementation plan
the strategy feeds, not in the strategy memo itself. Renumber the backlog to four
items (demand, sustainability/metrics, governance, hybrid-makers standard), record
the scope exclusion in the §12 intro, and re-point cross-refs (§12 #5 → #3
governance appeal; §12 #6 → #4 making/reselling standard).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Trust & safety (now §10) and legal & compliance (now §11) are written up, so
drop their backlog pointers (#1, #3) and renumber the six remaining items 1–6.
- Backlog now: demand, sustainability/metrics, MVP scope, data model,
governance, hybrid-makers standard.
- Intro notes the two graduated sections and points the recommended-next at
§10's open reputation-engine work.
- Re-pointed cross-refs to the renumbered items: §12 #4 → #2 (health metrics),
§12 #7 → #5 (governance appeal), §12 #8 → #6 (making/reselling standard);
the hybrid-makers "#1 accountability" tie now points to §10.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Promote backlog #1's settled shape into a full §10 (parallel to §11), leaving
only the OHM-guided reputation engine + adjacent frameworks as open work.
- §10 sections: the originating edge (trust topology); how reputation flows up
the edge (decayed, hop-capped, positive-reinforcement framing); consequence =
loss of standing not expulsion (transparency-as-enforcement, "gate the demand
not the tool"); authority & appeal (inviter primary, platform floor for active
harm, governance appeal path, provenance lies as trust violations, legal spine
in §11); and a "Still open" subsection gathering the OHM-guided reputation
engine, revocation triggers, dispute framework, out-of-flow non-delivery
(not guarantor), and false-report/collusion controls.
- Backlog #1 reduced to a pointer to §10, flagging the open engine as the
recommended next session.
- Re-pointed refs that targeted the old §12 #1 (top-of-file note, §11 ghosting
cross-ref) to §10.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Both verification (entry) and reputation (ongoing standing) gate the
network's demand surfaces; the storefront tool stays open to all.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Add an Open Human Model grounding note near the top: all principles rest
on the OHM dictionary (trust/consent/reputation/harm/recourse/value/agency/
dignity); the RFC is canonical on conflict; link to rfc.wiggleverse.org/p/ohm.
- §7: new 'Per-item provenance' subsection — provenance attaches per-item
(Original / Original+components / Resale–fellow-Maker / Resale–third-party),
self-attested + audited + buyer-facing, with trust-surface eligibility keyed
to it. Resolves the per-maker-vs-per-item question.
- Backlog #1 (trust & safety): upgraded from open question to spec-ready stub
— records the decided shape (originating edge, no-pay invites, decayed/capped
reputation flow-up, positive reinforcement, low-visible-score-not-expulsion,
inviter authority + platform floor) and marks the reputation *engine* as
OHM-guided work.
- Backlog #8: narrowed to the open making-vs-reselling line + enforcement.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
§7 + Appendix C refinements from the trust/referral working session:
- §7 money flow: spell out the Stripe Connect dial (charge type × account
type); the out-of-flow stance holds only at Standard + direct charges +
application_fee; flag the destination-charges default as a trap and label
Connect config a legal-posture constraint.
- Appendix C.2: default kit-supplier settlement is now money-free (merchant
handles obligations directly); platform notifies a supplier when their item
sells in another's kit but moves no money; Models B/C demoted to optional.
- §7 network service: holds full per-maker order history (since join) and a
cross-maker component-metadata layer on the catalog index.
- §7: new 'cross-merchant order transparency' principle (grocery scan-based /
DSD analogy) — one order-history asset, three uses.
- §7 verification: the membership gate phases (start invitation-only end to
end, loosen toward open signup once roots + density exist).
- §10 backlog: add item 8 (hybrid makers — original + resale catalogs).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Records the seven undeveloped operational axes (trust & safety, demand
GTM, legal/compliance, sustainability economics, MVP scope, data model,
governance) in rough priority order, each flagged as a future session.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ben.stull
Ben Stull