Oak Currency

Community Currency

Blockchain-based community currency for Oakland, California encouraging cyclical capital use within local community.

Type	Community Currency
Region	Oakland, California, USA
Status	Active
Links	Website X / Twitter

M69 Score

M69 Alignment1.7

Poorly aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty1.6

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

Civilizational Durability1.4

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption2.4

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

1.8

Stability2x

1.5

Fia Ind & Int2x

1.3

Traction2x

2.0

Sovereignty

1.4

Governance

1.5

Resilience

1.4

Inclusivity

3.2

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

Key Findings

Inclusivity is OAK's standout strength(3.2/5.0), driven by its genuine focus on serving underbanked communities of color in West Oakland, near-zero onboarding costs, participatory budgeting of community treasury funds via quadratic funding, and equal treatment of all participants. This is one of the strongest inclusivity profiles among community currency projects.

Full fiat dependence is the project's fundamental structural weakness.With 100% USD backing, a 1:1 USD peg, and complete reliance on banking infrastructure (Bridge, Coinbase, bank accounts), OAK scores near the bottom on both Fiat Independence (1.3) and Spending Power Stability (1.5). From an M69 perspective, OAK is a fiat wrapper, not an alternative monetary system.

The project appears dormant or in sharp decline.The last public update was November 2023, multiple website pages return 404 errors, and total lifetime transaction volume was only $3,547 across 136 wallets. This extremely limited traction and apparent inactivity severely constrain the Traction score (2.0) and raise existential questions about the project's continuity.

Sovereignty is critically weak(1.4/5.0) because the project can be shut down by any of several single entities (City3, Bridge, the bank holding reserves, or US regulators), depends on a single founder (Darrell Jones III), and has no immutable on-chain enforcement of monetary rules.

The community currency narrative and inter-city DAO network are promising but unrealized.OAK's collaboration with BrusselsDAO, PDXDAO, KCDAO, and ATXDAO on shared open-source infrastructure for city currencies represents a vision aligned with M69's "local expression" commandment, but this remains aspirational with no deployed interoperability.

Big takeaway: OAK demonstrates that strong social mission alone cannot substitute for monetary sovereignty.The project has genuinely M69-aligned values around inclusion and community empowerment, but its monetary architecture -- a centralized, fiat-backed, permissioned stablecoin -- is fundamentally misaligned with the M69 vision of debt-free, sovereign, value-preserving money. For OAK to improve its M69 alignment, it would need to transition from a USD wrapper to an independent unit of account with its own stability mechanism.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

OAK is a community currency project for the city of Oakland, California, developed by City3, a nonprofit founded by Darrell Jones III. The project aims to keep value circulating through local businesses, reduce merchant transaction fees, and support local causes through a community treasury funded by a 0.5% transaction fee. OAK is deployed on Coinbase's Base blockchain and uses Citizen Wallet for payments. Each OAK token is backed 1:1 by a US dollar held in a bank account, making it functionally a USD-pegged community stablecoin. From an M69 alignment perspective, OAK faces fundamental structural challenges. Its 1:1 USD peg and full fiat backing place it firmly in the category of fiat-dependent monetary instruments, which conflicts with the M69 vision of debt-free, fiat-independent money. The project's issuance is controlled through a partnership with Bridge (a stablecoin infrastructure provider), and there is no evidence of open-source smart contracts, formal governance documentation, or a whitepaper. The project's strongest alignment is in inclusivity, where its explicit focus on serving underbanked communities of color in Oakland represents genuine M69-aligned intent, and in its community currency narrative. However, the project appears to have significantly reduced activity since late 2023, with the last public update in November 2023, total historical transaction volume of only $3,547, and 136 unique wallets. The combination of very early stage, minimal traction, full fiat dependence, and limited public documentation results in a low overall alignment score.

Issuance Model3x

1.8

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?OAK issuance is managed through Bridge, a stablecoin infrastructure provider that handles issuance, KYC, compliance, and orchestration. Users cannot mint OAK permissionlessly; it requires fiat deposit through controlled channels. [1][2]	1
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?OAK is created by depositing USD into a bank account on a 1:1 basis. While not debt-based in the CDP/lending sense, the issuance is fully dependent on fiat deposits. No debt mechanism per se, but no debt-free issuance either -- it is a wrapped fiat model. [1][2]	3
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?Issuance is tied to fiat deposits, not to any real-economy index, labor output, or economic activity metric. Supply increases when someone deposits USD, not in response to economic signals. [1][2]	1
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?No hard cap exists. Supply is determined entirely by fiat deposits -- it expands when people deposit and contracts when they withdraw. However, there is no algorithmic elasticity tied to economic activity; it is purely deposit-driven. [1][2]	2
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Users can redeem OAK for USD through off-ramp channels (Coinbase), so contraction is possible via user-initiated redemption. However, this is a fiat withdrawal process, not an algorithmic contraction mechanism. [1]	2

Spending Power Stability2x

1.5

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?OAK is pegged 1:1 to USD via full fiat reserves. There is no independent stability mechanism -- stability is inherited directly from the USD peg. No algorithmic adjustment, rebase, or on-chain targeting exists. [1][2]	2
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?The benchmark is a 1:1 USD peg. USD is a single fiat reference that delivers moderate stability but with meaningful inflation. No custom basket or real-economy index is used. [1]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?No published methodology for stability measurement. The 1:1 peg is assumed via bank deposits managed by Bridge, but no on-chain proof of reserves, no independent audit reports, and no public verification mechanism has been documented.	1
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?The project had only $3,547 in total transaction volume across 30 weeks. At this scale, deviation tracking is not meaningful. No live track record of stability performance at any meaningful scale exists. [1]	1
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?No distinction. OAK inherits USD's inflation profile without any mechanism to address long-term purchasing power erosion. The 1:1 peg conflates price stability with purchasing power stability. [1]	1
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?OAK is designed specifically for Oakland, California residents and merchants. The stability mechanism (USD peg via bank account) is geographically and practically restricted to participants who can access the Oakland ecosystem. [1][2]	2

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

1.3

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?OAK is hard-pegged 1:1 to USD. The unit of account is fully borrowed from the US dollar. [1][2]	1
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?100% fiat reserves. Every OAK is backed by a US dollar held in a bank account. No non-fiat assets in reserves. [1][2]	1
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?The protocol cannot function without bank accounts holding USD reserves. Bridge handles fiat on/off-ramps. Coinbase is used for merchant off-ramping. Banking relationships are essential to core operations. [1][2]	1
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?OAK is defined as 1 OAK = 1 USD. All value references are fiat-denominated. No independent price feeds or oracles are used -- the peg is maintained through reserve backing, not oracle-driven mechanisms. [1]	1
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?If USD collapses, OAK collapses. The 1:1 backing means OAK has zero independence from USD systemic risk. No recovery or migration path has been documented. [1]	1
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No transition path from fiat has been articulated. The project treats USD backing as a permanent feature, not a bootstrapping mechanism. No roadmap toward fiat independence exists in any published documentation. [1][2]	1
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?OAK is itself a local currency, but it does not serve as a base layer for other local currencies. It cannot host sub-currencies. However, it is part of a broader network of city DAOs (BrusselsDAO, PDXDAO, KCDAO, ATXDAO) exploring shared infrastructure, suggesting some composability aspiration. [1]	2
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?No open standard for interoperability. OAK uses Citizen Wallet (open-source wallet infrastructure) and operates on Base blockchain, which allows generic crypto interoperability via DEXs and bridges, but no protocol-specific monetary standard exists. [1][2]	2

Traction2x

2.0

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?The last public update was November 2023. The website oak.community appears to have issues (404 on some pages). The X/Twitter account @oakcurrency exists but recent activity is unverified. The project appears to be in a reduced or dormant state as of April 2026. [1][2]	2
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?OAK began pilots at the West Oakland Farmers Market in early 2023. City3's community onboarding efforts date to 2022. The project has existed for approximately 3-4 years. [1][2]	3
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?136 unique wallets participated over 30 weeks. City3 onboarded 1,100 newcomers with wallets, but active usage appears to be well under 1,000 based on transaction data. The mailing list had 3,000 subscribers but this does not reflect active currency users. [1][2]	1
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?At peak, 15 of 20-30 merchants at the West Oakland Farmers Market accepted OAK weekly. This is in the 10-100 range but at the very low end. Some merchants processed up to 20% of daily volume in crypto. [1]	2
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?OAK is always quoted as equivalent to USD (1 OAK = 1 USD). Prices at the farmers market are set in USD and OAK is accepted at par. OAK is never used as an independent unit of account. [1][2]	2
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Darrell Jones III is the founder and CEO. As of the last public update (Nov 2023), the team was active but acknowledged challenges. No public evidence of team activity since late 2023. [1][2]	2
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Partners include Bridge (stablecoin infrastructure), Citizen Wallet (Brussels DAO), BrusselsDAO, PDXDAO, KCDAO, ATXDAO, Ethereum Foundation, Gitcoin, Visit Oakland, and Oakland Fund for Public Innovation. This represents 5+ meaningful partnerships. [1][2]	3
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Covered by the Harvard Belfer Center (academic case study on crypto city tokens), Crypto for Innovation, and niche crypto media. This represents meaningful specialist coverage. [1][2]	3
TR-09	Is adoption organic -- not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Adoption relies heavily on volunteer onboarding at the farmers market. The Nov 2023 update noted high churn and that personal financial incentives are more effective than civic ones. Adoption is partially organic but requires significant hands-on facilitation. [1]	2
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?No public updates since November 2023. Website pages returning 404 errors. No evidence of growth in the past 12 months. The project appears stagnant or declining. [1]	1
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?OAK has a clear community narrative around keeping money in Oakland, supporting local businesses, and financial inclusion for communities of color. The cultural identity is grounded in Oakland civic pride. The "Oakanda" NFT branding ties to Afrofuturism. This is a genuine cultural narrative, though community engagement appears primarily transactional. [1][2]	3

Sovereignty

1.4

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?City3 (the nonprofit) controls the project. Bridge controls issuance infrastructure. The bank holding USD reserves could freeze the account. Any of these single entities could effectively shut down OAK. [1][2]	1
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?OAK operates on Base (open blockchain) and uses Citizen Wallet (open-source). However, core issuance infrastructure is managed by Bridge (proprietary). The token itself may be on-chain, but critical operations depend on permissioned services. [1][2]	2
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?City3 is an Oakland-based US nonprofit. All operations, banking, and compliance are subject to US jurisdiction. The project is fully dependent on the US legal framework. [1]	1
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?Users interact via noncustodial wallets (Citizen Wallet, Rainbow). However, the underlying USD reserves are custodied in bank accounts managed by Bridge/City3. The fiat backing creates a custodial layer even if the token itself is non-custodial. [1][2]	2
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Darrell Jones III appears to be the primary driving force. The project is heavily dependent on his vision and community relationships. No evidence of distributed leadership or succession planning. [1][2]	1
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependencies on Bridge (issuance), Coinbase (off-ramp), Base blockchain (settlement), and a bank (reserves). Any of these could be revoked. [1]	1
SO-07	Can the project be censored -- can specific users or transactions be blocked?Bridge handles KYC and compliance, meaning censorship capability exists by design. The underlying Base blockchain and smart contracts may allow freezing or blacklisting. No evidence this has been used, but the capability is architecturally present. [1]	2
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?OAK operates on Base (a public blockchain), so transactions are pseudonymous but fully visible on-chain. Bridge collects KYC data. No privacy features beyond standard blockchain pseudonymity. [1]	2
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?No evidence of immutable smart contracts enforcing monetary rules. Issuance is managed by Bridge. No published smart contract addresses, no open-source monetary logic, no on-chain enforcement documentation found. Rules appear to be policy-based, not code-enforced.	1

Governance

1.5

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Biweekly community calls on Tuesdays indicate some community engagement. However, no formal governance framework, no documented decision-making process, and no on-chain governance has been found. Decisions appear to be made informally by the City3 team with community input. [1]	2
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?City3 collaborated with Ethereum Foundation and Oakland Fund for Public Innovation on a quadratic-funding-style participatory budgeting experiment ($15,000 to 7 nonprofits). However, this was a one-time experiment, not ongoing governance. Decision power rests with the City3 founding team. [1]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process -- and the monetary mechanism itself -- transparent and publicly auditable?Medium blog posts provide some operational transparency. However, no on-chain governance records, no public archive of decisions, and no auditable monetary mechanism documentation exists. The monetary mechanism (Bridge-managed issuance) is largely opaque. [1][2]	2
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?Governance is already concentrated in the City3 founding team. There is no token-weighted voting, no formal governance structure to capture. The project is effectively founder-controlled. [1]	1
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?No formal upgrade process documented. Changes appear to be made by the City3 team. Community calls may inform decisions but no binding proposal/vote mechanism exists. [1]	1
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No separation. Monetary policy (issuance via Bridge, 1:1 USD peg) and operational decisions are handled by the same team through the same informal process.	1
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?City3 has stated mission values around financial inclusion, community empowerment, and local economic circulation. These are articulated in blog posts and media coverage but are not formally protected by any constitutional document or on-chain immutable record. [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?Issuance rules (1:1 USD backing via Bridge) can presumably be changed by the City3 team or by changing the Bridge partnership. No special constraints protect monetary policy from unilateral changes.	1

Resilience

1.4

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?No evidence of any crisis or adversarial event. The project has operated at extremely small scale ($3,547 total volume) and has not been tested under stress. The project's apparent dormancy since late 2023 could itself be considered an existential challenge that has not been overcome. [1]	1
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?No evidence of redundancy. Single bank account for reserves, single stablecoin provider (Bridge), single blockchain (Base). No documented backup or failover systems. [1]	1
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?No documented disaster recovery plan. The open-source Citizen Wallet component could theoretically be rebuilt, but the reserves, Bridge integration, and community relationships would need to be re-established. Recovery would depend on specific individuals. [1]	2
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?The core concept is simple: USD-backed community currency on Base blockchain via Citizen Wallet. This simplicity is a strength. However, the integration with Bridge, KYC compliance, and fiat off-ramp processes add operational complexity. [1][2]	3
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Dependent on Base blockchain (backed by Coinbase, large ecosystem) and Citizen Wallet (open-source). Base is a major L2 with strong backing. Technology obsolescence risk is moderate -- if Base fails, migration to another EVM chain is possible but untested. [1][2]	3
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?No explicit stress mechanisms. If all OAK holders demand redemption simultaneously, the project depends on the bank holding sufficient USD. No circuit breakers, no dynamic collateral ratios, no documented stress testing. The 1:1 peg imports USD inflation risk directly.	1
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?City3 is a nonprofit. A 0.5% transaction fee funds a community treasury, but at $3,547 total volume, this has generated negligible revenue. The project appears dependent on grants and volunteer effort. No evidence of sustainable long-term funding. [1][2]	1
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?No consideration of extreme latency or multi-century operation. The system requires internet connectivity, Base blockchain access, and functioning fiat banking. Not designed for disconnected or long-timescale operation.	1
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?No evidence of AI compatibility considerations. The system uses standard ERC-20 tokens on Base, which AI agents could theoretically interact with via smart contract interfaces, but the KYC requirement via Bridge and human-centric onboarding process would restrict machine participation. [1]	2

Inclusivity

3.2

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?OAK is designed for Oakland residents and is geographically restricted by design. While there is no formal nationality restriction at the token level, the community currency model targets a specific city. Bridge KYC may add additional restrictions. [1][2]	2
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Onboarding is facilitated by volunteers at the farmers market with noncustodial wallets. Base blockchain has very low gas fees (well under $0.01). No minimum balance requirement documented. The cost to start is near-zero. [1][2]	4
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?City3 was explicitly founded to serve underbanked communities. 60% of onboarded users are people of color. The project operates in West Oakland, a historically underserved area. Financial literacy workshops are part of the onboarding. This is a core design goal, not an afterthought. [1][2]	5
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits -- including seigniorage -- broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?The 0.5% transaction fee goes to a community treasury managed through participatory budgeting. In the pilot, residents voted to allocate $15,000 to 7 local nonprofits via quadratic funding. This is a genuinely broad benefit distribution model, though at very small scale. [1][2]	4
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?All participants at the farmers market operate under the same rules. No tiered access, no preferential rates documented. Merchants and consumers use the same token at the same exchange rate. [1]	4
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Bridge handles KYC and compliance, which may require government ID for full functionality (fiat on/off-ramp). However, the wallet itself (Citizen Wallet) can be created without identity documents. The KYC layer creates a surveillance relationship for fiat interactions. [1]	2
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?The community currency model with local circulation focus and 0.5% transaction fee to community treasury provides a mild anti-concentration mechanism. However, no demurrage, no progressive fees, and no formal anti-concentration design exists. [1]	2

Frequently Asked Questions

What is OAK Currency and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in OAK Currency?

OAK issuance is managed through Bridge, a stablecoin infrastructure provider that handles issuance, KYC, compliance, and orchestration. Users cannot mint OAK permissionlessly; it requires fiat deposit through controlled channels.

How does OAK Currency maintain stable spending power?

OAK is pegged 1:1 to USD via full fiat reserves. There is no independent stability mechanism -- stability is inherited directly from the USD peg. No algorithmic adjustment, rebase, or on-chain targeting exists.

Is OAK Currency independent from fiat currencies?

OAK is hard-pegged 1:1 to USD. The unit of account is fully borrowed from the US dollar.

Who controls OAK Currency and can it be shut down?

City3 (the nonprofit) controls the project. Bridge controls issuance infrastructure. The bank holding USD reserves could freeze the account.

How widely adopted is OAK Currency today?

136 unique wallets participated over 30 weeks. City3 onboarded 1,100 newcomers with wallets, but active usage appears to be well under 1,000 based on transaction data. The mailing list had 3,000 subscribers but this does not reflect active currency users.

Is OAK Currency still active and growing?

The last public update was November 2023. The website oak.community appears to have issues (404 on some pages). The X/Twitter account @oakcurrency exists but recent activity is unverified.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of OAK Currency?

Weakest category: Fiat Independence (1.3).

What makes OAK Currency unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category: Inclusivity (3.2).

How is OAK Currency's M69 Score calculated?

OAK Currency scores 1.7/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 1.6, Civilizational Durability 1.4, Universal Adoption 2.4. Strongest: Inclusivity (3.2). Weakest: Fiat Independence (1.3).