Systemic Altruism
← Back to the cohort
Justice & public goodsPreliminary editorial review

RadicalxChange Foundation

The US nonprofit foundation supports research, tools and convening around plural and participatory institutions. The current quadratic-voting application is a scoped prototype, not proof of fair governance or an unrestricted open-source grant.

Visit the organization ↗

Systemic Altruism practice potential: 73–83/100
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.

Who this work enables

Tools & support for charities: Governance prototypes and shared guidance can help public-interest organizations test participatory decisions, subject to application-specific licensing and institutional safeguards.

Humanity’s Checklist source match

Coordination · Vision — editorial, partial alignment.

Experiments in collective decision rules and alternative institutions partially address coordination and shared institutional vision. This does not establish fair implementation, legitimate authority or checklist adoption.

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

Prototype and share participatory governance mechanisms

Six dimensions, with rationale

Structural depth

4 / 4

Prototyping decision and participation rules directly targets institutional mechanisms rather than only changing individual behavior; fairness and legitimacy remain unproven.

Institutional reach

3 / 4

Governance designs can be adapted across organizations and communities, but adoption and public authority are substantial constraints.

Durability

2 / 4

Documented methods and prototypes can persist, while legitimate institutions require ongoing stewardship, safeguards and mandate.

Scalability

3 / 4

Reusable designs and applications reduce prototyping costs, but institutional adoption and anti-manipulation work are not simple software copies.

Funding additionality

Unreviewed

No current marginal funding bottleneck or comparison with other participatory-governance investments was audited.

Community agency

Unreviewed

Participation in a vote or prototype is not proof of binding authority, inclusive agenda-setting, minority protection or control over real resources.

Evidence and selection

Organization reported; current primary mechanism sources inspected

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

A testable next question

In comparable real decisions, do supported participatory mechanisms improve inclusive, durable decision quality and actual power-sharing beyond ordinary consultation, without increasing manipulation, capture or exclusion?

Review confidence: Moderate for documented design; low for systemic attribution. RadicalxChange Foundation Ltd’s nonprofit governance research and tool-support model, with the current quadratic-voting application as an example; not the entire movement or ownership of linked external projects.

What remains uncertain

The about page identifies RadicalxChange Foundation Ltd as a US 501(c)(3); the wider community is not identical to the legal entity. The selected current quadratic-voting repository uses CC BY-NC 2.0: visible source with a noncommercial restriction is not treated as open-source licensing, so no badge is assigned. Referenced external tools such as Polis are not attributed to RxC as owner. Prototype cases do not establish causal fairness, resistance to manipulation or legitimate institutional power.

Sources to inspect

Propose a sourced correction →

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