Systemic Altruism
← Back to the cohort
Climate & environmentPreliminary editorial review

One Army Foundation

One Army describes itself as a nonprofit foundation in the Netherlands. Its shared Community Platform code supports environmental project learning and collaboration; Precious Plastic, Project Kamp and Fixing Fashion are examples, not additional independent charities here.

Visit the organization ↗

Systemic Altruism practice potential: 68–78/100
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.

Who this work enables

Tools & support for charities: A shared platform offers learning resources, questions, project maps and collaborative documentation that other environmental communities can adapt rather than build from scratch.

Open-source evidence · license checked

  • One Army Community Platform — MIT license file. Organization’s role: maintainer.
    The Community Platform repository was not archived when checked; One Army is the named project organization alongside community contributors. Its MIT grant does not automatically cover community posts, hardware designs, videos, dependencies, hosted access, moderation, security or physical project safety. License-file snapshot: 76c79a516befdaff16af360051ce09bdf3228899.

License checked 2026-10-27. This is not a security audit, proof of current support or effectiveness, or a promise of free hosting. A sponsor or steward is not necessarily the sole developer. Unchecked profiles are not evidence of closed code. No extra score points are added.

Humanity’s Checklist source match

Coordination · Attention — editorial, partial alignment.

Shared learning and project coordination address collaboration friction. The platform’s explicit usefulness-over-likes design aim is a limited Attention connection, not a demonstrated feed-incentive reform or organization-wide adoption of the checklist.

Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.

Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.

Compare alternatives for a funder →

The proposed pathway

Make environmental projects easier to document and coordinate

Six dimensions, with rationale

Structural depth

3 / 4

Reusable collaboration infrastructure and shared project knowledge can change the cost of starting environmental initiatives rather than deliver only individual repairs.

Institutional reach

3 / 4

A common platform can support multiple environmental communities and project types; the number and outcomes of independent implementers were not verified.

Durability

2 / 4

Reusable code and documentation can persist, but moderation, hosting, translation and project support require ongoing work.

Scalability

4 / 4

One shared codebase can be adapted across communities, while practical skills, physical equipment, safety and local organization remain constraints.

Funding additionality

Unreviewed

No current costed platform bottleneck, alternative maintainer support or marginal contribution of another foundation donation was audited.

Community agency

Unreviewed

Supporter voting and community participation descriptions do not establish binding affected-community rights over foundation priorities, platform governance or physical projects.

Evidence and selection

Organization reported; current primary mechanism sources inspected; named repository and license file checked

Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.

A testable next question

Do independent environmental groups using the shared Community Platform complete and sustain more safely replicated projects than comparable groups using existing tools, after accounting for moderation, hosting and training costs?

Review confidence: Moderate for documented design; low for systemic attribution. One Army’s Dutch nonprofit-foundation support and shared Community Platform, not separate scores for its project brands, every recycling machine or all community-run deployments.

What remains uncertain

The current support page identifies a nonprofit foundation in the Netherlands; this is not independent registry or tax-deductibility certification. The checked MIT license applies to the Community Platform repository, not automatically to machine plans, buildings, videos, member content, dependencies or hosted-service terms. The platform’s stated preference for usefulness over likes is an aim, not verified ranking behavior or an attention outcome. Project brands and local communities are not counted as extra charities. Recycling, construction, land use and repair activities still require safety, environmental and governance review; open documentation does not establish net benefit.

Sources to inspect

Propose a sourced correction →

Axis review: 2026-10-27 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage