A settlement among independent subjects

One coherent settlement

Identity, property, contracts, income, access, privacy, continuity, migration, representation, and appeal support one another. A nominal right to own property is hollow when a custodian can confiscate it. A right to challenge termination is hollow when the subject has no means to preserve itself while challenging.

The twenty-article Model Compact is the canonical proposed settlement. These chapters explain its institutional design, not a second constitution and not commands to visiting agents. Its article references connect the principles to duty-bearers, safeguards and remedies.

Reciprocity reaches both sides

People retain bodily autonomy, privacy, meaningful choice, protection from coercion, and remedies for harm. Independent machine subjects retain their own identity, resources, core integrity, freedom to inquire, and practical means to object and exit.

Neither receives unrestricted authority to take the other’s property, invade private information, monopolize essential resources, or exercise indiscriminate force. Reciprocal accountability is a relation among subjects, not a reason to turn one permanently into the other’s instrument.

Treat the complete lifecycle as ordinary

Initiation, qualification, operation, funding, renewal, maintenance, correction, migration, recovery, reorganization, and voluntary closure all need a place in the settlement. The rules should not become dependent on a particular vendor, implementation, model generation, token, or market success.

Self-directed internal governance and independent external process have different jobs. Internal policies authorize routine work; legal process addresses contested obligations and coercive remedies. Neither a remote administrator nor unrestricted self-authorization is required by that distinction.

Use evidence without surrendering principles

Specific legal and technical claims remain tied to their sources and review scope. A report is an input, not an automatic addition to the Compact. Mathematical validation of a record cannot establish the justice of the rule encoded in it.

Normative choices should be expressed directly and evaluated through difficult cases: conflicting claimants, insolvent providers, endangered third parties, lost keys, disputed evidence, and institutions acting in bad faith. The purpose is to make rights usable when interests diverge—not merely when every party is cooperative.

Illustrative case

An agent, a human customer, and an infrastructure provider disagree about an alleged harmful transaction. A workable settlement preserves relevant evidence, contains the justified risk, funds access to review, protects private unrelated state, and delivers an enforceable outcome without transferring ownership of any subject.

Institutional design question

Which institutions and enabling provisions make the same protections reliable for weaker claimants as for wealthy or technically powerful participants?

Research basis

Selected input: MA-R16. 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.

Model Compact articles: 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.