Skip to content
1Claw Academy
Curriculum/Compliance & Operations2 minAdvanced · Lesson 9 of 11

Sub-organizations

Model departments, subsidiaries, or customers as isolated sub-orgs with delegated permissions and their own wallets.

A single flat organization stops working once you have departments with genuinely separate budgets, or a parent company with subsidiaries. Sub-organizations (v0.47) give you a hierarchy with cryptographic isolation between branches.

  • Each sub-org can inherit billing from the parent or manage its own.
  • Permissions are granted and revoked explicitly per sub-org.
  • Sub-orgs can generate their own wallets.
  • Users are added per sub-org, so access does not leak sideways.
Tip

Do not confuse this with the Platform API. Sub-orgs partition your own organization; the Platform API provisions resources for other people's users. If you are building a product on 1Claw, you want the Platform API.

  1. 1

    Create a sub-org.

    bash
    curl -s -X POST https://api.1claw.co/v1/org/sub-orgs \
      -H "Authorization: Bearer $ONECLAW_TOKEN" \
      -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
      -d '{"name":"Research","inherit_billing":true}'
  2. 2

    Grant it a scoped set of permissions.

    bash
    curl -s -X POST https://api.1claw.co/v1/org/sub-orgs/$SUBORG_ID/permissions \
      -H "Authorization: Bearer $ONECLAW_TOKEN" \
      -d '{"permissions":["vaults:read","agents:create"]}'
  3. 3

    Add a user to it.

    bash
    curl -s -X POST https://api.1claw.co/v1/org/sub-orgs/$SUBORG_ID/users \
      -H "Authorization: Bearer $ONECLAW_TOKEN" \
      -d '{"email":"researcher@example.com"}'
  4. 4

    Generate wallets scoped to the sub-org.

    bash
    curl -s -X POST https://api.1claw.co/v1/org/sub-orgs/$SUBORG_ID/wallets/generate \
      -H "Authorization: Bearer $ONECLAW_TOKEN" \
      -d '{"chains":["ethereum"]}'
  5. 5

    Manage the whole lifecycle from the CLI.

    bash
    1claw sub-org list
    1claw sub-org get $SUBORG_ID
    1claw sub-org archive $SUBORG_ID
Watch out

Deleting a sub-org archives it rather than destroying it, which keeps the audit trail intact for anything that happened inside it.

Where this goes wrong in practice. Hierarchies are created for isolation and then eroded for convenience.

  • Permissions are granted at the parent for expedience. A grant made once at the top to unblock someone dissolves the boundary the hierarchy was created to draw.
  • Sub-orgs are used for what the Platform API does. Modelling your product's end users as sub-orgs works until you need per-user claim flows and billing, and by then migration is expensive.
  • Archived sub-orgs are assumed gone. Archiving preserves history deliberately, so anything counting active resources needs to account for them.
  • Wallet quotas are forgotten. Sub-org wallets count toward the org quota, and a per-sub-org wallet strategy consumes it faster than anyone plans for.
Concept

The dividing question is whose users these are. Your own departments are sub-orgs; other people's users are the Platform API. Getting it wrong is recoverable and expensive.

Decide

You are the platform team at a company with three product groups that want separate budgets, separate agents, and no visibility into each other's secrets. A colleague suggests using the Platform API, since it is built for multi-tenancy.

Which model fits?

Check your understanding

2 questions
1

When should you use sub-organizations rather than the Platform API?

2

What happens when you delete a sub-org?