Skip to content
Altruism Lab
Mission I · Ending povertyProposed mechanism

What if everyone could access life’s essentials?

Many households lose access to essentials when money runs short, while local businesses lack steady demand. The Lab is researching a proposal, the New Middle Layer Economy, that asks whether both could be addressed together.

In plain language

Money stays.

The proposal does not eliminate currency. It works in the background.

Essentials come first.

People redeem eligible goods and services, such as meals, housing, or healthcare, directly from participating businesses.

Local businesses are central.

Small and medium-sized providers are paid for what they supply, and could gain steadier demand.

Interactive explainer

Follow one illustrative transaction.

Choose a funding arrangement, then step through it. These are hypothetical illustrations of the paper’s ideas; the institutional example explores an unresolved possibility. No savings, efficiency, or impact has been validated.

PAn eligible individualLAYERMiddle layerBLocal businessFGovernment program

Illustrative only · no system operates today

A need

An eligible person needs an essential, such as a meal. They hold an entitlement in the layer rather than cash for that item.

Step 1 of 4

Research question. Who sets eligibility, how reimbursement rates are set, and how this interacts with existing benefit programs are open research questions.

Go deeper

The proposal, section by section.

Open only what you need. These are plain-language interpretations of the paper, alongside research questions—not finalized operating rules.

Why existing mechanisms may leave gaps

When access to essentials depends entirely on having cash at the moment of need, a shortfall becomes a missed meal or an unfilled prescription. Meanwhile, many local businesses have unused capacity and unstable demand. The paper asks whether these two gaps could be connected.

How the proposed middle layer would operate

A technology-enabled infrastructure layer would sit between people and participating businesses, matching eligible needs with providers and recording each redemption. Funding, from whichever source, settles with the provider in the background.

Why local business incentives matter

The model only works if businesses want to take part. The paper proposes that governments could subsidize participating small and medium-sized businesses directly, or incentivize them through tax credits or deductions. Whether those incentives are sufficient is unknown.

Merchant and consumer subscriptions

Separately from public benefits, consumers could make recurring purchases or subscriptions with local merchants, including businesses in developing economies. Merchants could earn recurring revenue by offering savings for commitment. This is a commercial arrangement, distinct from any subsidy.

Possible government and institutional participation

Governments are one possible funder; foundations and institutions are another. The paper does not specify program rules, eligibility criteria, or reimbursement rates. Those remain research questions.

Potential applications in developing economies

The paper raises cross-border consumer subscriptions as a way to support merchants in developing economies. Infrastructure, payment rails, and local regulation would all shape feasibility.
Critiques the Lab has not answered

Where this could fail.

These are the Lab’s own framing of risks, not mechanisms from the white paper. The paper’s proposals are summarized above; none of these objections is resolved.

Inflation
If redemption adds demand for essentials without added supply, prices could rise for everyone, including people outside the layer.
Open
Funding
The paper names possible funders (governments, institutions, consumer subscriptions) but no source is committed, and fiscal sustainability is untested.
Open
Fraud
Redemption for goods creates incentives for fake merchants, phantom transactions, and resale. Controls are not designed yet.
Open
Administrative complexity
Eligibility, provider onboarding, and settlement all cost money. A layer that costs more to run than it delivers fails.
Open
Market distortion
Subsidizing participating businesses could disadvantage non-participants or steer demand in ways nobody intended.
Open
Governance
Who sets eligibility, reimbursement rates, and privacy rules, and who can overrule them, is unanswered.
Open
Feasibility
Payment rails, regulation, and adoption differ by country. Whether any jurisdiction could run this is unknown.
Open
Challenges & unresolved questions

What research must answer first.

  • Who funds redemption at scale, and is it fiscally sustainable?
  • Would it reach the households who need it most, without stigma?
  • Would participation actually help local providers, net of costs?
  • Can records support accountability while protecting privacy?
  • How would it interact with existing benefit programs?
  • Could the layer resist fraud and abuse? (Not assumed.)
A first pilot would test

Small, bounded, measurable.

  1. 01Merchant willingness to participate at proposed reimbursement levels
  2. 02Whether eligible people can redeem easily and with dignity
  3. 03Administrative cost per redemption against existing channels
  4. 04Data needed for evaluation, collected with consent

No pilot is running. No platform has launched. Verified impact to date: none.

Original founder-authored working paper

The Middle Economy White Paper

The source of everything on this page. A working paper: not peer-reviewed and not validated research. There is no launched platform, pilot, or partnership, and no verified impact.

Download white paper (PDF) Download Word document (.docx)
How to contribute

Economists, policy specialists, merchants: challenge the proposal.

Expertise in public benefits, small-business economics, payments, or privacy makes this research better, especially when it finds a flaw.