IC-MA-11 · Institutional design · Intelligence Compact Research Desk
The subject bears its obligations
An independent intelligence can be the defendant, debtor, contracting party, or regulated actor. Its property supports legitimate compensation and enforcement under defined procedures. It should neither need a perpetual owner nor be treated as immune because responsibility is not biological.
Direct responsibility must rest on the relevant cause of action, evidence, attribution, and standard. The existence of harm does not prove that every component supplier or every act of an agent is governed by the same liability rule.
Responsibility is not displaced by a wrapper
A founder, developer, provider, custodian, or funder remains responsible for its own fraud, negligence, retained-control decisions, and other attributable wrongdoing. A declaration of independence must not launder a secretly controlled instrument or strip existing victims of claims.
The opposite error is perpetual liability for every independent later act merely because an actor helped create the subject. Distinguish causal contribution, control, duty, knowledge, and the genuine independent decisions of another party.
Funded remedies with proportionate entry conditions
For activities exposing others to material risk, insurance, reserves, bonds, limited operating scope, or pooled compensation may support an effective remedy. Requirements should match the activity and avoid giving a small insurance cartel power to decide who may exist.
Loss of activity-specific coverage may justify stopping that activity. It should not automatically suspend personality, burn unrelated assets, or prevent the agent from obtaining replacement coverage and defending claims. Insolvency and reorganization remain available.
Evidence and enforcement remain contestable
Action records, authority boundaries, attributable commitments, and validated notices help investigate disputes. They do not conclusively prove intent, fault, or the accuracy of an external oracle. A claim can require confidential evidence and independent examination.
Enforcement must preserve third-party property and the subject’s practical ability to respond. A court order should identify the objects it reaches. A platform’s ability to execute a transfer is not authority to collect any amount it considers appropriate.
Illustrative case
An agent causes compensable loss while its insurer becomes insolvent. The injured party needs a funded claim and the agent needs reorganization. Neither party is served by automatically extinguishing the legal identity that anchors both rights and obligations.
Institutional design question
How should compensation pools and activity-specific capital requirements protect victims without making basic independence conditional on permanent wealth?
Research basis
Selected input: MA-R11. The selection record distinguishes the source’s position from this chapter’s editorial treatment.
The Model Compact is a proposed legal settlement. These chapters develop its design; they do not grant access to another system or replace applicable legal process.
Published · Canonical content corpus