As we empower ever-larger communities to manage their money together we're beginning to look more closely at our governance tools. Today we're launching the first part of a 'two-to-sign' process that ensures at least two people are involved in the payment of an expense.
We've added an option under the Policies section of your Collective's Settings to stop admins from approving their own expenses: With this feature enabled admins will require another admin to approve their expenses before they are passed to hosts for payment. This is an early launch of a feature for Collectives that merely supports a good-faith agreement between admins. i.e. another admin could merely disable this feature to circumvent it.
Is this something you would prefer to enforce as a host? Is it something that you'd like to have enforced as a Collective? We're keen to hear what you think. Leave your comments on this post or email [email protected].
This is useful for big collectives as the post suggests maybe.
For us the biggest problem is that I am currently the only one in the collective that "knows" how to write an invoice: So it's not like the others do nothing, but they don't know how to write proper invoice (since there's always potentially taxation issues / documents / bureaucracy attached in many EU countries) and said since I do most work anyway I should get the money. For example in Germany, you can not write an invoice as a private person (only under some conditions if you sell a physical thing and then not regularly either), you need to be freelancer or small entrepreneur instead, and then the whole mess with the tax declaration etc starts (it's really not easy for people that don't know how and to make it worse, we are mostly from different EU countries that have different rules with that). They could maybe submit expenses, the problem is, what they do is helping people in Discord or doing documentation, so they would have to write an invoice for that, since it's an service, not an expense. I don't know how to solve this issue. I guess if they want to be paid for notable work, the only way is to register as freelancer or small company with all the bureaucracy that that causes here in most EU countries.
With OC Europe fiscal host, we are confronted with the same challenge.
While we do not offer a payroll option to the collectives, there are some dev/workers who are invoicing their collective through cooperatives of entrepreneurs (aka cooperative of activities).
These are quite famous in Belgium and France. The worker joins the cooperative (i.e. Smart / Elycoop) as an entrepreneur-employee. It is therefore the employer (i.e. Smart / Elycoop) that invoices OC Europe so that the workers can include the money earned on open collective in their income . The advantage is that it requires minimal paperwork from the worker as it is the role of the coop to figure out any tax related issues. The other advantage is that this system can be used for any type of social / open source work, and for any amount of money.
Happy to discuss this topic further if you are interested in this type of solution.
Being knowledgeable, who is coming into our private space is who we are when it comes down to who will receive what amount. Consider what was done and the amount of time that was involved in the project and also the cost that was involved also.
Seekde is often confusing when you try to look it up online, so this explanation simplifies it and presents the key points in a clear and easy-to-digest manner. seekde
The Block DFW coverage is clear and easy to follow, providing readers with a straightforward understanding of the topic without any unnecessary complexity. the block dfw
This is a great step toward stronger transparency and shared responsibility in community finances. Requiring at least two people to be involved in approving expenses not only reduces risk but also builds trust as collectives grow. It’s a smart example of how clear rules and well-designed governance tools can simplify complex decision-making—much like analisi logica online gratis treccanihelps bring structure and clarity to complicated sentences. Thoughtful safeguards like this make collaboration more sustainable and confidence-inspiring for everyone involved.
I really like this update — as communities grow, money decisions can get sensitive, and having at least two people involved just feels safer and more transparent. Blocking admins from approving their own expenses is a small change, but it makes a big difference in building trust. It shows you’re thinking about real-world dynamics, not just features. It reminds me of how accessible tools like chat gpt gratuit lower barriers while still encouraging responsible use — the balance between openness and accountability is what makes platforms sustainable in the long run.
This is a really positive step toward improving transparency and accountability in community financial management. Introducing a two-to-sign approval process helps reduce the chances of mistakes or misuse, especially when multiple admins are involved in handling expenses. Even though the current version relies on good-faith cooperation between admins, it still sets an important foundation for stronger governance practices in the future. As communities continue to grow and adopt better management tools, maintaining clear approval structures becomes essential. Similarly, when exploring online tools or resources—such as those discussed on platforms like executordelta—it’s always valuable to prioritize systems that emphasize security, transparency, and responsible use.
on