Conflict of Values Philosophy

July 2025

Purpose

This philosophy exists to ensure that our decisions about who we work with, what we build, and how we operate are aligned with our core values: Curiosity, Intersectionality, Honesty, Self-Agency, and Solidarity. It helps us identify and navigate situations where a potential action, client, or project may compromise or contradict these values.

Core Values in Practice

Our core values show up like this:

• Curiosity: We ask hard questions before taking on work. We expect transparency from potential partners and take time to understand intent and impact.
• Intersectionality: We assess the ways power and privilege shape the work and its outcomes. We aim not to participate in harm, even unintentionally.
• Honesty: We are clear about our boundaries and the reasons behind our decisions. We don't hide behind "neutrality" to avoid discomfort.
• Self-Agency: We trust our individual and collective judgment and ensure people impacted by decisions are informed and heard.
• Solidarity: We stand with communities and people resisting oppression, and we aim not to align with organizations that enable or benefit from systems of harm.

What This Philosophy Means in Practice

We will:

• Vet all incoming partnerships and projects through a values lens, not just revenue potential.
• Pause or decline work that triggers concern, even if a contract has already begun, where possible. When a contract cannot be cancelled, we will engage in conversation with the counterparty to align on expectations and next steps.
• Create space for members and impacted collaborators to raise value-based concerns early and often through a transparent and frequently updated sales funnel.

We will not work with:

• Organizations actively engaged and/or complicit in surveillance, policing, incarceration, oppression, war efforts, fossil fuel extraction, or discrimination (e.g. anti-2SLGBTQIA+, racist, ableist, or classist practices).
• Projects that directly or indirectly compromise digital safety, data sovereignty, or consent.
• Clients or collaborators who are unwilling to adapt or learn when concerns are raised.

Decision-Making & Escalation

We aim to balance autonomy with shared accountability. Not every decision needs full-member input, but values-based concerns must always be taken seriously. Here's how to approach decisions with potential value conflicts:

1. Autonomous "No" Calls

Members or teams directly responsible for a decision (e.g., taking on a client, choosing a vendor, scoping a project) have the authority to say "no" on values grounds without needing full-member approval. Use this approach when:

• The values conflict is clear (e.g., a client with a known track record of harm).
• Moving forward could expose others to harm or emotional burden by requiring them to weigh in.
• A member closest to the issue has enough context to confidently name the conflict.

A raised flag by any member, especially one naming harm to a marginalized group, is sufficient reason to stop or decline the work.

2. Consult Interested Parties

Bring in relevant members when the potential conflict is unclear or context-specific. This means actively seeking out a member with lived experience relevant to the potential conflict at hand, or a trusted member of Hypha, to get their insights and advice on the matter. Use this approach when:

• The value implications are murky or need unpacking.
• You need more lived experience or identity-based context to assess potential harm.
• There's disagreement or uncertainty within the decision-making group.

3. Escalate to Full Membership

Some decisions are broad enough to impact the co-op's direction, identity, or safety. Bring it to full membership when:

• There is total disagreement between the decision-makers on the path forward because the stakes of the decision are existential.

When in doubt, consult early and document the decision trail, including who was consulted, what values were discussed, and how the final call was made.

Where a member may not feel comfortable owning the decision, whether due to their own closeness to a particular issue or their lack of knowledge about the issue at hand, they may recuse themselves and delegate to another member for facilitation and documentation of the decision-making process.

Risks of Not Following This Philosophy

• Erosion of trust within the co-op.
• Complicity in harm to people or communities we aim to support.
• Misalignment between our public commitments and our actions.
• Reputational damage or member attrition.

Where there is an obvious (or ought to be known as obvious) conflict of values, where a member has breached this philosophy, there are a range of consequences up to and including being voted out or the organization splitting.

Accountability & Reassessment

This philosophy is a living document. Members are responsible for raising potential conflicts, and decision-makers must create the conditions for those concerns to be safely heard. This policy should be reviewed when new partnerships or engagements are proposed.

Showing Our Work:

The thought process: We've written this philosophy with high-stakes language because it has high-stakes impact.

As a co-op that believes richer futures are possible through community-driven technology and practices that return power to people, we hold ourselves accountable to our values, not just in theory, but in every decision we make.

Value conflicts will happen. We don't treat them as edge cases, but as chances to pause, reflect, and act with integrity. This isn't about moral purity or consensus. It's about staying aligned with why we exist.

This philosophy is a tool: to flag concerns early, check our assumptions, and guide high-impact decisions. It's how we stay accountable to each other and the communities we serve.

Example of this Philosophy in Practice:

The (Wildly Unlikely) Scenario: One of the world's most notorious billionaires has reached out directly to Hypha and offered $50,000,000 to partner on a new project.

In the examples of the decision-making and escalation process below, you can consider all A's as the ideal scenario, aligning with this policy's intention and integrity. B's can be considered the worst outcomes as they actively and intentionally breach this philosophy. C's are the options that move forward in the process escalation. For B's, there is a range of consequences, up to and including being voted out of membership or, in the final scenario, C outlines the organization splitting.

The Decision-Making & Escalation:

1. Autonomous "No" Calls
   1. The decision-making member who takes the "call" already knows the horrific words and actions of the billionaire and chooses the autonomous "no" as the deal would be a clear conflict of values. OR
   2. The decision-making member who takes the "call" already knows the horrific words and actions of the billionaire, but decides independently that a $50,000,000 deal is worth the value conflict and signs on the dotted line. OR
   3. The decision-making member who takes the "call" knows there's something sketchy about the billionaire, but doesn't know all of the context. The member reaches out to two trusted members within the co-op for Step 2:
2. Consult Interested Parties
   1. The trusted interested parties give the decision-making member all the necessary details to understand that this is a clear conflict of values. The decision-making member knows what they need to know to say "no". OR
   2. The trusted interested parties give the decision-making member all the necessary details to understand that this is a clear conflict of values. The decision-making member decides, against trusted guidance, that a $50,000,000 deal is worth the value conflict and signs on the dotted line. OR
   3. The trusted interested parties give the decision-making member all the necessary details to understand that this is a clear conflict of values. The decision-making member doesn't feel that they can make a $50,000,000 decision for the co-op on their own, so they bring in the full membership for Step 3:
3. Escalate to Full Membership
   1. The membership is briefed on all of the context they need to understand that this deal is a clear conflict of values. They vote "no". OR
   2. The membership is briefed on all of the context they need to understand that this deal is a clear conflict of values. They collectively decide that $50,000,000 is worth a breach in this philosophy. The philosophy is now, effectively, defunct. (not cool, folks) OR
   3. The membership cannot reach consensus, so they opt for a vote to split. One faction of the co-op moves forward as a separate entity, upholding the values of Hypha. The other faction of the co-op moves forward with $50,000,000. Karma does its thing; may the odds be ever in your favour.