Skip to main content

The Foundation as Long-Term Guardian

Early discovery

This page describes what we want the institutional layer to achieve and the direction we are currently exploring in consultation with legal counsel. The legal form, jurisdiction, and governance of the foundation itself are not yet finalised.

A protocol that claims to be long-term needs a structure that outlives its founders, its investors, and any specific commercial outcome. The goal of the institutional layer is to make CORPUS's commitments to contributors structurally durable — not contingent on the commercial entity continuing to feel like honouring them.

What we want the institution to do​

  • Be the guardian of the protocol, not the operator of the business. The entity that protects contributor interests should be the entity that holds the corpus and the rules — not the entity that has to make payroll.
  • Have a veto on the things that matter. Strategic decisions that could compromise contributor protections — sale of the corpus, change of fundamental licensing terms, redirection of the royalty pool — should require its consent.
  • Be answerable to contributors, not shareholders. The body that oversees the protocol should derive its mandate from the contributor community, not from the people who put up capital.
  • Be hard to dismantle. The institution should be designed so that the easiest path forward, for anyone who inherits CORPUS, is to continue honouring the protocol — not to extract the corpus and walk away from the obligations.

The direction we are currently exploring​

In consultation with legal advisors, the structure under design separates three entities:

  • A dedicated foundation (working name Corpus Stiftung) with no shareholders, existing solely to fulfil its purpose. It would own the entity that holds the corpus and hold a Golden Share — a veto right over strategic decisions — in the commercial entity. Its governing council would include representatives elected by the contributor community.
  • An IP entity owning all music contributions, managing the dataset, executing scoring and attribution, administering CRPS. Contributors' legal relationship is with this entity.
  • A commercial entity developing and operating the AI technology, the semantic pipeline, and the products. This is where external investment is placed and where commercial speed lives. The Golden Share is what keeps commercial pressure from overriding contributor protections.

This separation — trust (foundation), data (IP entity), commerce (operating entity) — mirrors the three-layer technical architecture.

The foundation is the destination, not the starting point​

This matters: setting up a foundation requires substantial capital, and its governance only becomes meaningful once there are real revenue flows to govern. If we wait for the institution to be operational before opening any governance to contributors, the formative period passes without contributor input.

So we are not waiting. The lighter mechanisms — the scoring jury, the dual-track separation — exist to ensure contributors have real influence from day one, not from the day the foundation is funded.

What is still open​

  • Jurisdiction and exact legal form of the foundation.
  • Composition and election mechanism for the governing council (Stiftungsrat).
  • The threshold of scale at which establishing the foundation becomes both necessary and viable.
  • The terms of the Golden Share — which decisions trigger the veto, and how it is invoked.

The destination is clear. The detailed legal architecture is being worked out.