The $5 Impact Hack
Create a safe and clearly limited way for builders to turn a very small test fund into honest results and learning.
Read the full projectOur work
See what we have built and what we have learned
Each example explains the problem, what we agreed to do, who helped when we have permission to name them, what was made, what happened, and what we still do not know.
Current program
The first DoGoodie mini-challenge
Work list
Real work with clear limits
How the Ethical Capacity Lab parts connect
Explain how decisions are made, how practical work happens, and how relationships grow without presenting them as one promise or fixed route.
Read the full projectPilot work
The $5 Impact Hack
- Problem
- Create a safe and clearly limited way for builders to turn a very small test fund into honest results and learning.
- Background
- DoGoodie’s first active mini-challenge uses published seven-day steps, clear rules about who can take part, and clear protections.
- What we agreed to do
- Program design, public rules, application timeline, requirements for showing the work, and a publishing process that asks permission.
- Contributors
- DoGoodie program team; participant identities are not published without permission.
- What was made
- A public program page, scoring guide, timeline, standards, and a clear way to show the completed work.
- Result
- The program is in progress. No completion outcome or participant result is claimed.
- How we know
- Published program page, rules, timeline, and protections for participants.
- Limits
- No winner, participant result, impact number, or completion count is available yet.
- What we still do not know
- Whether the model produces durable impact or future collaboration remains unproven.
- Permission to publish
- Organization-authored program information is public; participant work awaits separate review and permission.
In review work
How the Ethical Capacity Lab parts connect
- Problem
- Explain how decisions are made, how practical work happens, and how relationships grow without presenting them as one promise or fixed route.
- Background
- ECL research and planning define distinct audiences, trust checkpoints, and boundaries between each part of the ecosystem.
- What we agreed to do
- Combine research, organize website information, create clear visitor options and protections, and design pages for different screen sizes.
- Contributors
- Skyler (vision), Destine (product and operations), and John Mark (project ownership and execution).
- What was made
- The page structure, explanation of how support may move, resources, and step-by-step sections on this website.
- Result
- A public explanation of the three parts and the available options. This shows published work, not proof of social impact.
- How we know
- The public page explaining how the parts connect, visitor pages, protections, and supporting diagrams.
- Limits
- The organization is still developing, and evidence from day-to-day work is still limited.
- What we still do not know
- We do not claim large scale, a fully developed organization, or proven results from the whole model.
- Permission to publish
- Only approved role names and public-facing project information are used.
People, tools, and support
What helps the work happen
Organizers and project managers
Builders and specialists
Reviewers and protections
Partners and resource providers
Systems and documentation
Relationships and community support
Public learning and communication
Participant projects