hOurworld

Time Bank Network

World's largest time banking platform with 35,000+ members across 400 time banks in 39 countries. One hour of anyone's time equals one time dollar regardless of service.

Type	Time Bank Network
Region	Global
Status	Active
Links	Website

M69 Score

M69 Alignment3.1

Partially aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty3.3

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability1.8

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption3.8

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

3.4

Stability2x

2.9

Fia Ind & Int2x

3.7

Traction2x

3.7

Sovereignty

1.4

Governance

1.6

Resilience

2.3

Inclusivity

4.0

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Strongest categories: Inclusivity (4.0), Fiat Independence (3.7), and Traction (3.7).hOurworld embodies radical equality through its "one hour equals one hour" principle, which is arguably the most egalitarian monetary unit ever deployed at scale. Its unit of account is fully sovereign (no fiat reference), its adoption is entirely organic, and it operates across 39 countries with 35,000+ members and 2.3 million hours exchanged -- genuine real-world traction without any speculative incentive.

Weakest categories: Sovereignty (1.4) and Governance (1.6).The platform is proprietary, centrally hosted, fully custodial, and controlled by a small founding team with no distributed governance. All 400+ time banks and 35,000+ members depend entirely on hOurworld's centralized servers and the continued goodwill of its operators. This creates a profound gap between the system's egalitarian values and its authoritarian infrastructure.

The "philosophical sovereignty vs. technological dependence" paradox is the defining tension.hOurworld's monetary design is more fiat-independent than most cryptocurrency projects — it has no fiat peg, no fiat reserves, and no fiat price feeds. Yet its technological architecture is less sovereign than almost any blockchain project — proprietary code, centralized hosting, no self-custody, no cryptographic enforcement. The money is sovereign; the infrastructure is not.

Time-as-currency is a uniquely powerful stability mechanism that the framework almost undervalues.Unlike price-pegged stablecoins, hOurworld's unit of account cannot deviate from its target because the unit IS the target. An hour is always an hour. This makes it structurally immune to inflation, deflation, and depegging — but this immunity comes from definitional simplicity rather than engineered mechanisms, which limits how highly it can score on stability questions that reward explicit algorithmic targeting.

Resilience is the existential risk.With no open-source code, no self-hosting capability, no sustainable funding model, no disaster recovery plan, and no multi-planetary readiness, the entire 16-year, 39-country, 35,000-member network could disappear if the founding team stops operating or the hosting provider fails. This is the same vulnerability that killed Ithaca Hours, now magnified to global scale.

Big takeaway: hOurworld proves that the M69 vision of debt-free, labor-backed, inclusive money can work at meaningful scale — but without open-source code, decentralized infrastructure, and distributed governance, even the best monetary design sits on a fragile foundation.A blockchain-based or open-source fork of this model, preserving the time-as-unit design while adding cryptographic enforcement and self-custody, would be one of the most M69-aligned projects possible.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-10

hOurworld is the world's largest time banking platform, founded in 2010 in Portland, Maine by Stephen Beckett, Linda Hogan, and Terry Daniels. The platform provides free, proprietary software ("Time and Talents") to over 400 time banks with 35,000+ members across 39 countries. Members earn time credits by providing services to others — one hour of service equals one time credit regardless of the type of work performed — and spend those credits receiving services from other members. To date, hOurworld members have exchanged over 2.3 million hours of service. The platform operates as a nonprofit, deriving funding from trainings, grants, brokered agency software, research data access, and member gifts, while keeping the core platform free for local community time banks. From an M69 alignment perspective, hOurworld demonstrates significant strengths in its issuance model and inclusivity. Its currency is entirely debt-free, tied directly to real human labor, and treats all participants equally — one hour is one hour regardless of the skill involved. The system embodies radical equality and community self-determination. The time-based unit of account is fully sovereign, independent of any fiat currency, and structurally resistant to inflation since it anchors to an invariant measure (one hour of human time). The project's scale across 39 countries and its organic, non-speculative adoption pattern are notable achievements. However, hOurworld faces fundamental limitations from an M69 architecture perspective. The platform is proprietary, centrally hosted on servers in New Jersey, and fully custodial — all transaction data and member balances are controlled by the hOurworld organization. There is no blockchain, no on-chain enforcement of monetary rules, no cryptographic proofs, and no self-custody option. The system depends on the continued operation of a small nonprofit team and their server infrastructure. Governance is informal, with no constitution or immutable principles. While the philosophical alignment with debt-free, labor-backed money is strong, the technological and sovereignty infrastructure is minimal, creating a gap between the project's values and its architectural resilience.

Issuance Model3x

3.4

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?Semi-open issuance. Each local time bank has a "TimeBank account" that acts as a community fund, issuing time credits to members. Individual coordinators manage issuance within their community. Members earn credits by providing services — this is rule-based and automatic upon service completion. However, joining a time bank requires coordinator approval, and the coordinator decides on initial credit grants. Permissioned set of issuers but rule-based. [1][2]	3
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?No debt mechanism whatsoever. Time credits are created when a member performs a service for another member or for the community. The TimeBank account can issue credits to "prime the pump," functioning like a community grant. No borrowing, no collateral, no lending — purely service-backed issuance. [1][2]	5
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Directly tied to labor. One time credit is issued per hour of actual service performed — tutoring, cooking, repairs, transportation, etc. This is a direct link between currency creation and real-economy productive activity. Some credits are also granted for joining (priming), which is not directly tied to output but represents willingness to participate. [1][2]	4
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?No hard cap. Supply expands naturally as members perform services. When Member A serves Member B, A gains a credit and B's balance decreases — this is a zero-sum transfer, not net new creation. The TimeBank community fund can create net new credits for priming, but overall the system is naturally elastic. No formal contraction mechanism but balances can go negative (representing obligation). [1][2]	3
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Partial contraction. When a member receives a service, their balance decreases. Members can have negative balances (representing a debt to the community). However, there is no systematic burn mechanism and no protocol-level supply contraction. The community fund credits are monotonically increasing. Contraction occurs naturally through service receipt but is not a designed monetary mechanism. [1][2]	2

Spending Power Stability2x

2.9

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?The stability mechanism is structural rather than algorithmic: one time credit always equals one hour of service, regardless of what the service is. This is an implicit stability mechanism — the "price" of any service is fixed at one credit per hour. There is no rebase, no oracle, and no adjustment mechanism. Stability comes from the definitional anchor (1 hour = 1 credit). [1][2]	2
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?The benchmark is one hour of human labor — a real-economy anchor tied directly to productive capacity. This is structurally designed to track actual service output. The system does not reference CPI or any external index; it is self-referential (1 credit = 1 hour of anyone's time). This anchors value to labor output with egalitarian weighting. [1][2]	4
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?The stability measurement is definitional and transparent — 1 hour = 1 credit is a publicly stated, easily understood rule. However, it is enforced by the platform operator, not by on-chain logic. All transaction records are held on centralized servers. Any participant can verify the rule conceptually, but cannot independently audit the database. [1][2]	2
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?The 1:1 hour-to-credit ratio has been maintained since 2010 — over 15 years. By definition, the system cannot deviate from its target because the unit IS the target (one hour of service). Over 2.3 million hours have been exchanged at this fixed ratio. The "purchasing power" in terms of service-hours has remained perfectly stable. [1][2]	4
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?The time-based unit inherently avoids both. There is no market price to be volatile, and the hourly anchor does not drift over time (an hour is always an hour). However, the system does not explicitly address the fact that the market value of different services changes over time, or that the opportunity cost of an hour varies. No explicit design for either dimension — stability is a side effect of the time anchor, not an engineered feature. [1][2]	2
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?The stability mechanism (1 hour = 1 credit) functions identically everywhere the platform operates — across 39 countries. However, access requires joining a local time bank through the hOurworld platform, which is coordinator-gated. The mechanism itself has no geographic restrictions but practical access depends on local time bank availability. [1][2]	3

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

3.7

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?Fully sovereign unit of account. The time credit (one hour of service) is defined independently of any fiat currency. Unlike Ithaca Hours ($10 = 1 HOUR), hOurworld's time credit has no fiat equivalence. Services are priced in hours, not dollars. The unit is self-referential: 1 credit = 1 hour of anyone's time. [1][2]	5
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?Zero fiat reserves. Time credits have no collateral or backing of any kind — they are backed by the reciprocal obligation of community members to provide services. No fiat, no crypto, no commodities. Pure social trust and reciprocity. [1][2]	5
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?The core time exchange does not require banking. Members exchange services directly, with credits tracked on the platform. hOurworld as an organization accepts donations in fiat to fund operations, but the time banking mechanism itself operates without banking relationships. The platform runs on servers paid for with fiat, but the monetary mechanism is bank-independent. [1][2]	4
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?No price feeds or oracles exist. The system has no external data feeds of any kind. The 1:1 hour-to-credit ratio is a fixed definitional rule, not a dynamically maintained peg. There is no oracle infrastructure — analog rule enforcement on a centralized database. [1][2]	3
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?The protocol references no fiat currency. A fiat collapse would not affect the time credit system at all — members would continue exchanging hours of service. The organizational funding (donations, grants) would be disrupted, but the monetary mechanism is structurally immune to fiat failure. [1][2]	5
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?The project is already largely fiat-independent in its monetary mechanism. Time credits have never been fiat-denominated. However, the organizational infrastructure (servers, development) runs on fiat funding. No explicit plan exists to make the organizational side fiat-independent. The monetary layer needs no transition; the operational layer has no transition plan. [1][2]	3
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?Each time bank on the hOurworld platform is effectively a local currency — 400+ independent time banks operate their own local exchange, all denominated in the same unit (one hour). Members can potentially exchange across time banks. However, cross-bank settlement is limited; most exchanges are intra-community. The architecture supports local expression within a shared standard, but inter-bank composability is basic. [1][2]	3
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?No open standards for interoperability. hOurworld is a closed proprietary system with no published API, no cross-system settlement protocol, and no interoperability specification with other monetary or time banking systems. Time banks on hOurworld can interact with each other but not with external systems like Community Weaver, TimeOverflow, or blockchain-based time currencies. [1][2]	1

Traction2x

3.7

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?Fully active and operational. The platform continues to onboard new time banks, the software is actively maintained, and the co-founder Stephen Beckett remains the lead programmer. Over 400 time banks are active on the platform. Recent media coverage (Boston Globe, December 2025) confirms continued operation and growing interest. [1][2]	5
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?Founded in 2010 — 16 years of continuous existence. The software has gone through multiple versions (Time and Talents v1, v2), demonstrating sustained development over this period. [1][2]	5
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?Over 35,000 registered members (some sources cite 44,000+) across 400+ time banks. However, "registered" does not mean "active" — time banking typically has high registration but lower active participation rates. Active member count is likely lower than total registrations. Still, 35,000+ registered members across 39 countries is substantial for a community currency. [1][2]	3
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?Time banking is primarily person-to-person rather than business-to-person. Some time banks integrate with nonprofit organizations, healthcare providers, and community organizations (e.g., ArchCare in New York). However, traditional "merchant acceptance" is not the primary model. Hundreds of community organizations participate across the network, but formal business acceptance is limited. [1][2]	2
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?Within time bank communities, services are priced and negotiated in time credits. Members list their offers and requests in hours. The currency is used as a unit of account within its defined community network — you don't ask "how many dollars?" but "how many hours?" However, this usage is confined to the time banking context; it does not extend to external pricing. [1][2]	4
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Stephen Beckett, co-founder, remains the lead programmer and is actively developing the software. The founding team is still involved. LinkedIn and website confirm ongoing active leadership. [1][2]	5
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Research partnerships with Penn State University and Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), funded by NSF. Individual time banks partner with healthcare organizations (ArchCare), community organizations, and nonprofits. Michigan Alliance of Timebanks is a regional network. Over 100 time banks migrated from TimeBanks.org platform. Multiple institutional relationships across sectors. [1][2]	4
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Covered in Boston Globe (2025), Salon (2019), Smithsonian Magazine, US News & World Report, ABC Nightly News. Academic partnerships with Penn State. Time banking generally has extensive academic literature. hOurworld specifically is referenced in GEO, Truthout, Shareable, and Solutionbank. [1][2]	4
TR-09	Is adoption organic — not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Entirely organic. Members participate out of genuine desire for community mutual aid. No token incentives, no speculative value, no financial returns. Time credits have no market value and cannot be traded for fiat. Participation is driven by authentic community need and social connection. [1][2]	5
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?The platform has grown from approximately 10,000 members in 2014 to 35,000+ in recent years. The number of time banks has more than doubled in the past five years. Boston Globe coverage in late 2025 notes renewed interest driven by economic uncertainty. Growth is moderate and steady rather than explosive. [1][2]	4
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Strong founding narrative rooted in Edgar Cahn's co-production philosophy and the belief that "people are the true wealth of the world." The time banking movement has a clear value system: equality of time, community reciprocity, and recognition of the "core economy." hOurworld's tagline "Neighbors helping neighbors" captures a durable cultural identity. The movement has cultural artifacts (books by Cahn, the co-production framework) that reinforce long-term commitment. [1][2]	4

Sovereignty

1.4

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?Yes. hOurworld operates on centralized servers managed by Top of Third in New Jersey, USA. The hOurworld nonprofit controls all infrastructure. If the organization ceases operations or the hosting provider terminates service, the entire platform goes down. A single organizational decision or a single hosting company action could shut down the system. [1][2]	2
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Fully proprietary. The source code is proprietary PHP, and no self-hosting option exists. Time banks cannot run their own instance of the software. All 400+ time banks depend on hOurworld's centralized hosting. The platform is described as "open source, but in a corral" — meaning they accept ideas but do not release code. [1][2]	1
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?hOurworld is a US nonprofit with servers in New Jersey. While time banks operate in 39 countries, the infrastructure and organization are concentrated in a single US jurisdiction. US regulatory action could materially impair the platform for all users globally. [1][2]	2
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?Fully custodial. All member balances, transaction histories, and time credit records are stored on hOurworld's centralized servers. Members have no self-custody option. If the platform goes offline, members lose access to their balances. The platform controls all "funds" (time credits) and members must trust the operator. [1][2]	1
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Significant key-person risk. Stephen Beckett is the lead programmer and co-founder. The codebase is proprietary with no indication of a large development team. If Beckett were unable to continue, the software development and maintenance would be severely impaired. Operational knowledge appears concentrated in a small group. [1][2]	2
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependency on Top of Third hosting provider for servers in New Jersey. The platform depends on this single hosting relationship. Additional dependencies include standard web infrastructure (domain registrar, SSL certificates, etc.). No documented fallback or migration plan. [1][2]	2
SO-07	Can the project be censored — can specific users or transactions be blocked?Coordinators and administrators have full control over member accounts within their time bank. Members can be removed, suspended, or blocked. The platform operator (hOurworld) has root access to all data. Censorship is technically trivial and operationally routine (coordinators manage membership). No censorship-resistance by design. [1][2]	1
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?Limited privacy. Coordinators can see all transactions within their time bank. hOurworld states "you own your data" and uses encryption in transit (HIPAA-compliant data centers), but the operator has full access to all transaction data. Member profiles include name, skills, and contact information. No privacy-preserving design — standard centralized database with admin access. [1][2]	2
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?No technological enforcement. The 1:1 hour-to-credit rule is a policy enforced by the software operator. An administrator could silently change credit balances, modify the exchange ratio, or alter transaction records. All monetary rules are software-enforced by the platform operator, with no cryptographic proofs, no immutability, and no transparency layer. [1][2]	1

Governance

1.6

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Governance is informal. hOurworld describes itself as operating in an arena of "open innovation" — co-producing and implementing members' and coordinators' best ideas. However, there is no formalized governance process, no public decision records, and no documented procedures. Decisions appear to be made by the founding team with community input via feedback channels. [1][2]	2
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Decision power is held by the founding team (Stephen Beckett, Linda Hogan, Terry Daniels). No voting mechanism exists for the broader community of 35,000+ members or 400+ time bank coordinators. Local time banks have autonomy over their own operations but no governance power over the platform itself. [1][2]	1
GO-03	Is the governance process — and the monetary mechanism itself — transparent and publicly auditable?The monetary mechanism (1 hour = 1 credit) is publicly stated but not independently auditable. The codebase is proprietary. There is no public record of governance decisions, no on-chain transparency, and no way for external parties to verify that the system operates as described. HIPAA-compliant security means data is encrypted, but this protects against external access, not operator abuse. [1][2]	2
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Already captured in the sense that a small founding team controls everything — the code, the servers, the data, and all platform decisions. There is no governance mechanism to capture because no distributed governance exists. The founders are benevolent operators, but the structure offers no protection against capture. [1][2]	1
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?Changes are made by the development team based on community feedback. Coordinators and members can suggest features, and the team implements them. The "open innovation" model accepts ideas, but execution is unilateral. No formal proposal process, no voting, no time-locks. The v2 upgrade of Time and Talents was decided and executed by the team. [1][2]	2
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No distinction. The same founding team makes all decisions — software features, monetary rules, data management, and organizational strategy. There is no concept of "monetary policy" as separate from operations because the monetary rule (1 hour = 1 credit) is so simple it rarely requires governance. But there is no structural protection if it ever needed to change. [1][2]	1
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?hOurworld articulates values — "people are the true wealth of the world," "simplicity and abundance," "joy of giving and receiving." These align with Edgar Cahn's five core values of time banking: assets, redefining work, reciprocity, social networks, and respect. However, these are informal values, not a constitutional document. They are not formally protected from override. [1][2]	2
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?The founding team could change issuance rules (e.g., the 1:1 ratio, the community fund priming rules, member grant amounts) at any time through a software update. No special protection exists for monetary policy versus operational changes. There are no time-locks, no community votes, and no constitutional constraints on issuance rule changes. [1][2]	2

Resilience

2.3

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?The project has operated through the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw increased interest in mutual aid and time banking. It has also survived the transition of 100+ time banks from the competing Community Weaver platform. However, no severe adversarial events (regulatory attacks, infrastructure failures, or exploitation attempts) are documented. The project has experienced moderate stress but nothing catastrophic. [1][2]	3
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?Servers are RAID 1 mirrored with multiple processors at HIPAA-compliant data centers. Daily/weekly/monthly backups exist. However, all infrastructure is with a single hosting provider (Top of Third) in a single geographic location (New Jersey). No multi-region deployment, no alternative hosting, no distributed infrastructure. [1][2]	2
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Backups exist, and the proprietary codebase could theoretically be redeployed. However, since the code is proprietary and not publicly available, recovery depends entirely on the founding team and their hosting provider. If both were lost, recovery would be impossible — no external party could rebuild the system. No documented disaster recovery plan is publicly available. [1][2]	2
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?The core concept is extremely simple: 1 hour of service = 1 time credit. Anyone can understand this immediately. The software itself is a standard web application (PHP, MySQL, HTML5). The design is elegant and minimal. New participants can understand and join within minutes. One of the simplest monetary designs in existence. [1][2]	5
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Built on PHP and MySQL — a widely-supported, mature technology stack unlikely to become obsolete in the near term. However, the web-first approach may face challenges as technology evolves. The mobile app was developed with NSF support but is a supplementary feature. The core stack is durable but migration would require the proprietary team's involvement. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?The time-based unit is structurally immune to inflation and deflation since 1 hour always equals 1 credit. There is no collateral to crash and no liquidity in the traditional sense. However, there are no explicit stress mechanisms. The main risk is "time credit hoarding" or imbalanced supply/demand for services, which the system does not address programmatically. The design is inherently stress-resistant but passively so, not by engineered mechanisms. [1][2]	3
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?Funding comes from trainings, grants, brokered agency software, research data access, and member gifts. The core platform is free. This is a precarious funding model — no protocol fees, no endowment, no self-sustaining revenue. The project relies on a mix of grants and donations. Sustainability depends on continued external funding, which is not guaranteed long-term. [1][2]	2
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?The system requires internet connectivity to function — all data is on centralized servers. No offline mode, no asynchronous operation, no disconnected network support. The web application model assumes low-latency global connectivity. Multi-century timescale operation depends entirely on organizational continuity. [1][2]	1
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?The system requires human identity and human-provided services. Joining requires a coordinator, and services are physical/social in nature (cooking, tutoring, repairs). No API for programmatic interaction, no smart contract interface. The system is designed exclusively for human-to-human service exchange. Machine participation is not considered. [1][2]	1

Inclusivity

4.0

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?Open to anyone in principle — the platform operates in 39 countries with no nationality restrictions, no wealth requirements, and no social status gatekeeping. However, participation requires joining a local time bank, which requires coordinator approval. If no time bank exists in your area, you cannot participate. Geographic availability is the practical barrier, not intentional exclusion. Translated into 9 languages. [1][2]	3
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Zero cost. The platform is free. No membership fees, no minimum balances, no transaction fees. Some individual time banks request small voluntary donations (~$25/year) but this is not required. Members receive initial time credits for joining. The barrier to entry is effectively zero from a financial perspective. [1][2]	5
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?Time banking is explicitly designed for financially excluded populations — you need no money, no bank account, and no credit history to participate. hOurworld time banks serve diverse communities including elderly populations (ArchCare), low-income neighborhoods, and immigrant communities. The design philosophy values contributions that the market economy undervalues. [1][2]	4
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits — including seigniorage — broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?Benefits are distributed broadly by design. All participants earn and spend on equal terms. The platform is free, so there is no revenue extraction. The founding team provides the platform as a public good with no financial return. There is no insider advantage, no founder allocation, and no venture capital participation. New time credit creation (priming) goes to the community fund, not to insiders. [1][2]	5
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?The foundational principle is radical equality: one hour of anyone's time equals one hour of anyone else's time, regardless of skill, profession, education, or status. A lawyer's hour equals a teenager's hour. No tiered access, no preferential rates, no special privileges. This is one of the most egalitarian monetary designs ever implemented. [1][2]	5
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Light identity requirement. Members provide their name, skills/interests, and contact information to their local time bank coordinator. No government ID or KYC is required. The coordinator serves as a community gatekeeper rather than a bureaucratic verifier. However, member profiles are visible within the time bank, and coordinators have access to transaction data. [1][2]	3
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?The equal-time principle is a strong anti-concentration mechanism. Since all hours are valued equally, a member cannot accumulate disproportionate "wealth" through skill premiums. The system is designed for spending (receiving services), not hoarding. However, there is no demurrage or formal expiry mechanism to prevent credit accumulation. The design discourages concentration passively but does not actively prevent it. [1][2]	3

Frequently Asked Questions

What is hOurworld and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in hOurworld?

Semi-open issuance. Each local time bank has a "TimeBank account" that acts as a community fund, issuing time credits to members. Individual coordinators manage issuance within their community.

How does hOurworld maintain stable spending power?

The stability mechanism is structural rather than algorithmic: one time credit always equals one hour of service, regardless of what the service is. This is an implicit stability mechanism — the "price" of any service is fixed at one credit per hour. There is no rebase, no oracle, and no adjustment mechanism.

Is hOurworld independent from fiat currencies?

Fully sovereign unit of account. The time credit (one hour of service) is defined independently of any fiat currency. Unlike Ithaca Hours ($10 = 1 HOUR), hOurworld's time credit has no fiat equivalence.

Who controls hOurworld and can it be shut down?

Yes. hOurworld operates on centralized servers managed by Top of Third in New Jersey, USA. The hOurworld nonprofit controls all infrastructure.

How widely adopted is hOurworld today?

Over 35,000 registered members (some sources cite 44,000+) across 400+ time banks. However, "registered" does not mean "active" — time banking typically has high registration but lower active participation rates. Active member count is likely lower than total registrations.

Is hOurworld still active and growing?

Fully active and operational. The platform continues to onboard new time banks, the software is actively maintained, and the co-founder Stephen Beckett remains the lead programmer. Over 400 time banks are active on the platform.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of hOurworld?

Weakest categories: Sovereignty (1.4) and Governance (1.6).: The platform is proprietary, centrally hosted, fully custodial, and controlled by a small founding team with no distributed governance. All 400+ time banks and 35,000+ members depend entirely on hOurworld's centralized servers and the continued goodwill of its operators. This creates a profound gap between the system's egalitarian values and its authoritarian infrastructure.

What makes hOurworld unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest categories: Inclusivity (4.0), Fiat Independence (3.7), and Traction (3.7).: hOurworld embodies radical equality through its "one hour equals one hour" principle, which is arguably the most egalitarian monetary unit ever deployed at scale. Its unit of account is fully sovereign (no fiat reference), its adoption is entirely organic, and it operates across 39 countries with 35,000+ members and 2.3 million hours exchanged -- genuine real-world traction without any speculative incentive.

How is hOurworld's M69 Score calculated?

hOurworld scores 3.1/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 3.3, Civilizational Durability 1.8, Universal Adoption 3.8. Strongest: Inclusivity (4.0). Weakest: Sovereignty (1.4).