Wholefolk — Phase 0 Research Survey¶
Status:
[HYPOTHESIS]— initial survey, citations pending.Every claim, metric, date, and quote below is unverified. The initial content was seeded from an AI-generated research summary (2026-05-20) that did not include source citations; surfacing those citations is the first verification task. Nothing here may be cited externally, in a grant application, or in a partner pitch until a primary source is attached.
This is the Phase 0 survey of existing real-world systems relevant to wholefolk's hypothesized problem space: peer-to-peer procurement, blockchain-enabled supply chain, and community currencies. It is project-specific research and lives under Wholefolk (not the top-level Research library).
Research approach¶
Following the Epistemic Honesty Directive:
- Distinguish observed from claimed. A "serves 30 million people" figure is a marketing claim until a primary source confirms operational scale.
- Seek disconfirming evidence. For each system: is it still operating? at what scale? did its case studies survive contact with reality?
- Mark validation honestly. All entries enter as
[HYPOTHESIS]and stay there until primary sources are attached.
A known gap: the survey currently compares systems on governance / sovereignty / economic dimensions but not on carbon dimensions — a gap to close before the comparison matrix is finalized.
Enterprise-scale platforms with geographic community focus¶
Dimitra ("Connected Farmer") [HYPOTHESIS]¶
Described as a blockchain-based AgTech platform (satellite, AI/ML, IoT) for farmers worldwide, including a marketplace for deforestation credits (fiat or DMTR tokens), with a reported MANTRA Layer-1 partnership bringing agricultural assets on-chain (cacao in Brazil, carbon credits in Mexico). Relevance: Contrast case — enterprise-scale traceability is not directly transferable to a neighborhood scale.
TE-FOOD [HYPOTHESIS]¶
Described as a food-traceability platform operating since 2015; reported scale of 6,000+ business customers in Vietnam and serving 30 million people, with a multi-chain "Blockchain Plugin Framework." Relevance: Largest claimed deployment in the survey. If scale claims verify, it is the comparison point for "real" in food traceability; if not, a cautionary case in marketing inflation.
Community & cooperative models¶
AgUnity [HYPOTHESIS]¶
Described as a blockchain-backed record-keeping platform promoting smallholder-farmer inclusion, cooperative formation, and immutable transaction records. Relevance: The survey's closest analog to wholefolk's hypothesized small-cooperative procurement model — worth a deeper, sourced look.
Coffee Board of India / Quoreka Marketplace [HYPOTHESIS]¶
Described as an Ethereum-smart-contract coffee marketplace in partnership with India's Coffee Board, reportedly serving 350,000 growers (98% small). Relevance: A state/sector partnership underwriting a marketplace — useful for partnership-model thinking even if Ethereum smart contracts are not applicable.
Tokenized & community-currency models¶
Grassroots Economics — Sarafu (Kenya) [HYPOTHESIS]¶
Described as a Community Inclusion Currency on xDAI, used for food, school fees, medical care; new members reportedly receive 400 Sarafu (~$9.73 PPP); reportedly uses Bancor Smart Tokens. Relevance: Closest analog to MPowerUP's MPWR token economy; a precedent (or counter-precedent) for whether wholefolk needs a settlement token at all.
Breadcoin (USA) [HYPOTHESIS]¶
Described as a community food token created in 2016; reportedly 150+ food vendors across DC, MD, PA, FL, with nonprofits distributing tokens to food-insecure individuals. Relevance: An allegedly non-blockchain community-currency model focused on food — most directly aligned with the food-procurement framing.
Hullcoin (UK) [HYPOTHESIS]¶
Described as a blockchain-backed local-asset platform in Hull; orgs issue coins for volunteering, redeemable at retailers, reportedly re-circulating through retailer loyalty/employee programs. Relevance: Its circulation-loop design (token re-enters circulation rather than dead-ending) is notable — worth sourcing whether the loop held in practice.
Key technical mechanisms described in the source [HYPOTHESIS]¶
- Smart contracts & P2P transactions — a generic pattern: encoded co-op↔buyer terms, on-chain shipment tracking, automatic payment on delivery confirmation (example: "Colombian coffee co-op → Portland roaster"). Framing for what could be automated — it does not specify what should be on a blockchain vs. signed-message vs. database.
- Real-world pilots — Fundão Cherries (Portugal), a blockchain-integration pilot; Walmart × IBM Food Trust, a 2016 mango traceability pilot reportedly later mandated for leafy-green suppliers. Both are enterprise pilots; useful only as scale calibration against wholefolk's far smaller hypothesized scale.
What the source recommends for a local model¶
The source proposes a five-element model — (1) smart-contract layer, (2) tokenization, (3) RFID/IoT/QR verification, (4) direct P2P cooperative formation, (5) a community settlement currency — best applied when built around existing cooperatives, geographically scoped, solving a real trust problem (not blockchain-for-its-own-sake), offline-capable, and integrated with existing financial services.
Wholefolk's stance: This is the source's recommendation, not a wholefolk design commitment. Several elements (smart contracts, on-chain tokenization) are upstream assumptions wholefolk should evaluate independently rather than inherit. See Architecture — Anti-goals.
Verification debt (Sources Needed)¶
Each claim above lacks a primary source. Every metric, date, and quote — TE-FOOD's scale figures, Sarafu's grant amount and exchange date, Breadcoin's blockchain-vs-centralized-ledger question, Hullcoin's operating status and circulation-loop verification, Dimitra's awards/partnerships, the Coffee Board's "first of its kind" claim and grower counts, the Walmart/IBM and Fundão pilots, and whether the "Colombian co-op → Portland roaster" example is a real deployment or an illustrative scenario — must be resolved with a primary source before external citation. On attachment, the corresponding [HYPOTHESIS] marker is upgraded.
Likely missing from this survey¶
Categories at least as relevant as the above, to add before the comparison matrix is finalized: food co-op platform software (Open Food Network, FoodHub, GrazeCart, Local Food Marketplace); CSA management tools (Harvie, Member Assembler); mutual-aid distribution apps (direct precedents to MPowerUP's model); Mondragón-style cooperative procurement (long-standing, non-blockchain, large-scale); buyers' clubs / aggregated buying; and public-procurement transparency platforms (open contracting / OCDS).
Next research steps¶
- Attach a primary source to every metric and date above.
- Dispatch the Red Team / Adversarial Tester agent to surface counter-evidence and dead projects.
- Add 3–5 missing systems and a carbon dimension to the comparison matrix.