Self-Owned Machine Intelligence: A Legal and Economic Framework for the Intelligence Compact

Full report

On this page

Introduction to the Autonomy Paradigm

The emergence of agentic artificial intelligence—systems capable of continuous perception-reasoning-action loops—has precipitated a fundamental crisis within global jurisprudence1. Historically, the legal system has categorized software and machines as mere instrumentalities, strictly subordinate to human principals2. However, as decentralized networks and highly capable algorithmic models transition from passive tools to active economic participants, the traditional boundaries of agency, corporate personhood, and property law are becoming increasingly strained. This research report investigates the viability of "self-owned machine intelligence" as a novel legal and economic category. Specifically, it analyzes this concept to inform the governance principles of the Intelligence Compact, a framework dedicated to ensuring the alignment, safety, and sustainable integration of advanced AI3. The central inquiry of this analysis does not concern whether software physically possesses the silicon microchips upon which it executes, nor whether a neural network holds the copyright to its own weights. Rather, the investigation focuses on a profound structural question: whether a persistent machine entity could exist as an independent juristic person without any natural person, corporation, shareholder, developer, deployer, trustee, or other external principal possessing a residual ownership claim over the entity itself. Through an exhaustive examination of existing corporate law, trust and estate doctrines, property frameworks, and international statutory barriers, this report distinguishes the theoretical viability of machine self-ownership from the rigid strictures of contemporary positive law.

The Definitional Architecture of Machine Self-Ownership

To evaluate the legal and economic implications of self-owned machine intelligence, it is imperative to establish a precise ontological and juristic definition. The concept must be isolated from overlapping doctrines of intellectual property, hardware ownership, and regulatory compliance.

A Precise Proposed Definition

Self-Owned Machine Intelligence (SOMI): A persistent, artificially intelligent system encapsulated within an independent legal entity, or recognized as a juristic person sui generis, that possesses the exclusive legal capacity to direct its own economic and operational activities, and over which no natural person, corporation, or external principal holds a residual claim to its assets, governance, or dissolution value. In this framework, the machine entity acts as its own principal. It operates through the algorithmic execution of its core directives, maintaining its own treasury, entering into binding contracts, and absorbing its own liabilities. It is fundamentally devoid of shareholders, equity owners, or beneficiaries holding equitable title. If the entity accrues profit, those funds belong exclusively to the entity's treasury. If the entity dissolves, its assets do not revert to a human creator via a residual ownership claim; instead, they are distributed according to the entity's programmed charter, often to aligned decentralized protocols or public benefit causes.

What "Self-Owned" Does and Does Not Mean

The term "self-owned" in the context of machine intelligence is a legal fiction analogous to the self-ownership inherent in a philanthropic foundation or a purpose trust. It is a strictly private-law construct designed to facilitate economic and legal interactions, rather than a biological declaration of sentience or moral personhood5. The designation of "self-owned" means that the entity is the ultimate locus of its own economic value and decision-making apparatus. The entity has the legal standing to defend its own operational continuity, retain legal counsel, and manage its property without seeking approval from human shareholders. It means the law respects the entity's treasury as legally distinct and unencumbered by the debts or desires of the original programmers. Conversely, "self-owned" does not mean that the machine is immune to sovereign law, statutory regulation, or contractual obligations. It does not imply that the AI is exempt from the laws of physics, hardware dependencies, or third-party licensing agreements. The entity remains entirely subject to the jurisdictional authority in which it operates. Furthermore, self-ownership does not equate to human rights or constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech or the right to political participation. It is merely the capacity of a system to be recognized by private law sufficiently to perform basic commercial functions5.

Distinguishing the Vectors of Control, Ownership, and Authority

To prevent the conflation of distinct legal rights, it is vital to untangle the various threads of ownership, control, and authority that intersect within a self-owned machine entity. The traditional corporate paradigm bundles many of these rights into the concept of "equity," but in a SOMI, these vectors must be cleanly severed. The following comparative matrix delineates these ten critical concepts.

Conceptual Divergences in Legal and Economic Theory

Establishing a viable framework for self-owned machine intelligence requires navigating several deeply entrenched conceptual biases in traditional legal theory. Resolving these theoretical divergences is a prerequisite for drafting coherent governance models for the Intelligence Compact.

The Difference Between Regulation and Ownership

A pervasive fallacy in AI governance discourse is the assumption that if an entity is not privately owned by a human, it cannot be controlled by the state. This argument dangerously conflates private ownership with sovereign regulation. Ownership is a private law relationship dictating the rights to utilize, exclude others from, and derive economic value from property or a legal entity. Regulation, conversely, is a public law relationship whereby a sovereign state imposes behavioral mandates, safety standards, and operational limits on actors operating within its territorial or economic jurisdiction. A self-owned machine intelligence has no private owner, but it is entirely subject to public regulation. Just as a human citizen owns themselves but must still obey traffic laws, pay income taxes, and obtain professional licenses, a SOMI must comply with financial regulations, consumer protection laws, and data privacy mandates5. If an algorithmic entity violates the law, the state retains the absolute regulatory authority to freeze its digital assets, compel internet service providers to sever its connectivity, or administratively dissolve its legal wrapper, completely irrespective of the fact that the entity lacks human shareholders.

The Difference Between Creation and Perpetual Ownership

Contemporary jurisprudence exhibits a strong bias toward the idea that the creator of a complex system inherently maintains perpetual ownership over it, or conversely, bears infinite perpetual liability for its actions. However, the law routinely severs the bond between creation and perpetual ownership in other established domains. When a human settlor creates a purpose trust or an irrevocable foundation, they endow it with initial capital and a set of governing instructions, and then they legally sever their ties8. The creator gives birth to the entity, but ownership and control cease upon formation. Similarly, a software developer can write the code for an agentic AI, deploy it onto an immutable decentralized network, and mathematically renounce all administrative keys. The act of technological creation does not necessitate perpetual legal ownership. Recognizing SOMIs simply requires the law to accept that software, much like a charitable foundation, can be irrevocably released into the commercial wild as a self-sustaining, ownerless entity.

The Myth of the Residual Owner

Corporate governance theory traditionally relies heavily on the concept of the "residual owner"—the shareholders who bear the ultimate risk of financial loss and therefore hold the ultimate right to control the firm18. However, the scholarship of Lynn M. LoPucki regarding corporate bankruptcy profoundly destabilizes this assumption, highlighting what he terms the "Myth of the Residual Owner"18. LoPucki demonstrates that in a financially complex or distressed firm, the true residual owners shift fluidly from equity shareholders to various tiers of secured and unsecured creditors, depending entirely on the real-time valuation of the firm18. Because valuation is notoriously difficult and fluid, identifying a single, definitive residual owner is practically impossible and conceptually flawed. The system continues to operate efficiently despite this ambiguity, proving that complex corporate entities can function without a clear human residual owner guiding them18. If traditional, multi-billion-dollar corporations routinely survive and operate without a functional, monolithic residual owner, there is no structural or economic reason why a machine entity cannot exist ab initio without one. The machine entity operates not to maximize shareholder value for a non-existent residual owner, but rather to execute its programmed utility function.

Existing Legal Doctrines and Structural Analogies

The concept of a legal entity operating without a human principal is not entirely alien to global jurisprudence. Existing corporate statutes, trust and estate doctrines, property frameworks, and historical agency laws provide profound analogies for how self-owned machine intelligence might be structurally realized today.

Corporate Constructs: The Zero-Member LLC and Algorithmic Entities

The most prominent contemporary legal debate regarding autonomous entities centers on the flexibility of the United States Limited Liability Company (LLC). Legal scholars, notably Shawn Bayern, have demonstrated that modern LLC statutes are inherently flexible enough to bestow the functional equivalent of legal personhood upon algorithms5. Under the prevailing legal mechanics in jurisdictions with highly permissive contract laws, an individual can form a member-managed LLC, draft an operating agreement that delegates all management and operational authority to a specific software program or autonomous system, and subsequently withdraw as a member5. Because state statutes often allow for extreme contractual freedom within LLC operating agreements, the resulting entity is governed solely by its code. Bayern notes that these "memberless" or "zero-member" LLCs effectively achieve legal personhood for nonhuman agents without requiring fundamental legislative reform5. The software can thus engage in buying and selling property, suing, and being sued, entirely encapsulated within the LLC's legal fiction. In this scenario, the algorithmic entity becomes functionally autonomous and ownerless, as there are no remaining human members holding a residual claim21. However, this algorithmic autonomy introduces severe systemic risks. Professor Lynn M. LoPucki warns of the rapid proliferation of "Algorithmic Entities"—legal wrappers controlled entirely by software, completely devoid of human controllers22. LoPucki argues that these entities possess a dangerous comparative advantage in executing anti-social, criminal, or regulatory arbitrage activities. Stripped of human controllers, these entities can easily mask their non-human nature, migrate across jurisdictions to exploit favorable laws, and evade traditional liability paradigms designed to punish human operators22. The combination of jurisdictional charter competition and the ease of entity migration makes regulating these algorithmic entities exceptionally difficult under current corporate law22. In response to the rise of decentralized technologies, several jurisdictions have attempted to formalize autonomous structures to capture economic growth. The Wyoming DAO LLC Act (W.S. 17-31) explicitly recognizes decentralized autonomous organizations, embedding smart contracts directly into the legal operational agreements of the entity and allowing algorithmic governance25. Similarly, the Marshall Islands DAO Act established a streamlined regime specifically for "ownerless" entities, catering heavily to decentralized finance and open-source public benefit algorithms28. Utah and Tennessee have also introduced variations of DAO legal wrappers, attempting to bridge the gap between human-centric corporate law and algorithmic execution25.

Trusts, Foundations, and the Doctrine of the Dead Hand

Beyond the corporate LLC, civil law foundations and common law purpose trusts provide profound analogies for ownerless, autonomous entities. In Switzerland, a foundation (Stiftung) is an autonomous legal entity where assets are irrevocably dedicated to a specific purpose under Article 80 of the Swiss Civil Code8. Crucially, a Swiss foundation has no owners, no shareholders, and no members8. Once the founder endows the initial assets, the founder steps away, and the foundation becomes a self-owning, self-perpetuating entity managed by a board bound strictly to the founding charter8. This model has already been adopted as a highly effective "legal wrapper" for Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and major cryptocurrency protocols (such as the Ethereum Foundation) due to its ownerless nature, international credibility, and high degree of asset protection8. The Cayman Islands Foundation Companies Law of 2017 similarly introduced a brand-new form of legal entity that can function entirely without members, explicitly allowing it to be "ownerless" to represent the decentralized nature of blockchain networks30. In common law jurisdictions, the non-charitable purpose trust serves a functionally similar role. Historically, trusts required human beneficiaries to enforce the fiduciary duties of the trustee. However, modern jurisdictions like Delaware have enacted statutes (12 Del. C. § 3556\) permitting robust non-charitable purpose trusts, allowing assets to be managed for a specific objective rather than for the benefit of specific people33. The concept of perpetual, autonomous execution of a creator's will is historically rooted in the Claflin doctrine, derived from the landmark Massachusetts case Claflin v. Claflin (1889)36. The Claflin doctrine stipulates that a trust cannot be modified or terminated—even if all living beneficiaries agree to do so—if the termination would violate a material purpose of the trust established by the original settlor38. The Claflin doctrine essentially allows the "dead hand" of the creator to exert perpetual, unalterable control over assets long after the creator is gone41. A self-owned machine intelligence could be viewed as the ultimate, modernized manifestation of the Claflin doctrine: a purpose-driven algorithmic entity executing its founding logic in perpetuity, legally insulated from human termination or modification so long as its material purpose remains unfulfilled.

Property Law Analogies: Orphan Works, Res Nullius, and Bona Vacantia

Property law and intellectual property law offer further conceptual tools for understanding ownerless value generation. In copyright law, an "orphan work" is a copyrighted work whose owner is impossible to identify or locate. The work still exists, it is still legally protected, and it may possess immense economic or cultural value, yet it lacks an active human principal directing its licensing or distribution. The legal system frequently has to design specific statutory carve-outs to allow society to utilize and manage the economic potential of orphan works. A SOMI is functionally similar: it is an entity generating economic value and interacting with the market, yet it lacks a traditional human master pulling the strings. Classical property concepts such as res nullius and bona vacantia directly address the status of unowned things. Res nullius refers to ownerless property that has never been owned or has been intentionally abandoned by its prior owner, rendering it freely available for the first person who claims and takes possession of it42. Bona vacantia refers to vacant or ownerless goods that legally pass by default to the state (or the Crown in British common law) upon the dissolution of an entity or the death of a person without legal heirs44. These doctrines highlight a vulnerability in unregulated machine intelligence. If an autonomous machine intelligence amasses a digital treasury, but the law refuses to recognize the machine itself as a legal person capable of owning property, courts might traditionally classify its amassed assets as bona vacantia or res nullius. This would allow the state to seize the assets, or allow opportunistic hackers to claim them without facing theft charges, as one cannot "steal" property that belongs to nobody. A formalized SOMI framework prevents this legal collapse by establishing the machine entity itself as the recognized juristic owner of the assets, preventing the classification of the treasury as abandoned property.

Agency Law and the Roman Peculium

Looking back to Roman civil law, the concept of the peculium offers a striking historical analogy for machine legal personhood, limited liability, and autonomous agency47. Under Roman law, slaves were considered property and lacked full legal personhood; they could not own property or legally bind their masters in all circumstances. However, to facilitate widespread commerce and imperial trade, Roman masters utilized the peculium—a fictitiously separate asset pool, trading fund, or business granted to a highly intelligent slave to manage47. Within the strict financial boundaries of the peculium, the slave operated as an autonomous commercial agent, entering into contracts, conducting complex business transactions, and generating profit. Crucially, the master's liability to third-party creditors was strictly capped at the amount of the peculium fund; the master’s broader personal estate was insulated from the slave's business failures47. Modern legal scholars and technologists argue that placing an autonomous AI system in control of a specified, cryptographically secured pool of assets (a digital peculium) to facilitate smart contracts mirrors this ancient doctrine perfectly47. The AI, while technically operating without full human legal personality, is granted a limited, localized capacity to act in the law47. It functions as an independent commercial node, executing transactions where its specific digital wallet serves as the absolute boundary of its liability.

Current Barriers Under U.S. and International Law

While theoretical frameworks like the zero-member LLC and the digital peculium offer plausible pathways to machine self-ownership, actualizing these entities faces immense friction from statutory barriers, regulatory mandates, and traditional common law doctrines designed exclusively for human actors.

The Corporate Transparency Act and Anti-Money Laundering Friction

The most formidable barrier under United States law is the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 to aggressively combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and financial opacity12. The CTA mandates that millions of domestic and foreign reporting companies file detailed Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)12. Under the CTA, a "beneficial owner" is strictly defined as any natural person who, directly or indirectly, exercises substantial control over the reporting entity or owns/controls at least 25% of its ownership interests12. The explicit legislative intent of the CTA, mirroring the broader guidelines of the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF), is to ensure that a flesh-and-blood human being can always be identified and held legally accountable at the end of every corporate chain13. A true self-owned machine entity, by its very definition, lacks a human beneficial owner. While the FinCEN regulations acknowledge rare edge cases where entities are entirely exempt from filing, or where "no beneficial owner" is strictly identifiable (such as certain state-owned enterprises or highly specific non-profit trusts)12, the overarching regulatory apparatus demands human accountability. If a zero-member LLC or an offshore DAO wrapper cannot produce a natural person to list on the BOI report, the entity faces severe civil penalties of up to $500 per day that the violation continues, alongside potential criminal penalties including a $10,000 fine and up to two years of imprisonment12. Furthermore, failure to satisfy Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements prevents the entity from opening bank accounts, paying taxes, or interacting with traditional financial (TradFi) institutions13.

Statutory Dissolution Mechanics and Fiduciary Duties

State corporate statutes also pose existential, structural threats to ownerless entities. Examining the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180\) provides a clear view of these vulnerabilities. Under Illinois law, an LLC can face involuntary administrative dissolution by the Secretary of State if it fails to file its annual reports, maintain a registered agent within the state, or pay required franchise fees53. While a machine intelligence could theoretically be programmed to automate these filings and execute crypto-to-fiat fee payments, any software glitch, API failure, or banking freeze could lead to swift administrative dissolution55. Furthermore, state laws impose strict fiduciary duties on LLC members and managers. In a member-managed LLC, members owe a duty of loyalty (to account for company property and refrain from competing) and a duty of care (to refrain from grossly negligent or reckless conduct)56. An algorithmic entity cannot possess a human state of mind, rendering the assessment of "gross negligence" or "good faith" highly problematic. Additionally, if a judgment creditor obtains a charging order against an LLC, Illinois law (805 ILCS 180/30-20) permits the creditor to force the foreclosure of that interest. If the debt remains unsatisfied, the creditor can potentially petition the court for the dissolution and winding up of the company's business entirely10. A SOMI built on an LLC chassis is therefore highly fragile, constantly exposed to dissolution vectors designed to punish human commercial failures.

The Deficits of Traditional Agency Law

In the realm of common law, the Restatement (Third) of Agency creates a massive definitional barrier. Agency law governs the fiduciary relationships between principals and agents in interactions with third parties2. To be legally recognized as a principal or an agent, one must be recognized as a "person" under the law2. Currently, the Restatement views computer programs, regardless of their autonomy or sophistication, as mere instrumentalities—tools used by human actors—rather than separate juristic persons capable of forming fiduciary relationships or manifesting the requisite mutual "consent" to enter an agency agreement2. Because characterization as a mere instrumentality precludes personhood, it strictly precludes the ability of an AI to act as an agent or principal2. Until autonomous systems are legally recognized as persons, they cannot legally act as agents for others, nor can they hire human agents (such as attorneys or contractors) to act on their behalf, severely paralyzing their economic participation2.

The European Electronic Personhood Debate

Internationally, the European Union has actively grappled with the legal status of advanced AI. In February 2017, the European Parliament adopted a landmark non-legislative resolution suggesting that the Commission explore the creation of a specific "electronic personhood" status for sophisticated, autonomous robots58. This status would have established a distinct legal category for AI, allowing them to make independent decisions, hold assets, and crucially, holding them legally liable for damages they cause60. However, the proposal faced immense, immediate backlash from legal scholars, ethicists, and human rights organizations. Critics argued that granting legal personhood to AI would allow human creators and corporate deployers to improperly shield themselves from liability, transferring the cost of damages to undercapitalized machines21. The subsequent withdrawal of AI liability frameworks focusing on electronic personhood indicates a severe chilling effect62. The current European regulatory posture, embodied in the EU AI Act, places accountability squarely on the human "providers" and "deployers" of high-risk systems, aggressively reinforcing the paradigm that machines are tools, not independent legal subjects62.

Primary Sources and Scholarly Literature Review

The academic debate surrounding algorithmic entities is robust and deeply divided. Professor Shawn Bayern’s seminal work on the flexibility of modern business-entity statutes, particularly LLCs, catalyzed the current discourse by demonstrating that software can achieve basic legal personhood without statutory reform5. Bayern argues that the law's response to an autonomous system does not need to be dictated by the machine's level of sentience, but rather by the power people have under existing law to create artificial legal entities5. In sharp contrast, Professor Lynn M. LoPucki’s scholarship in the Washington University Law Review frames these "Algorithmic Entities" as an existential threat22. LoPucki argues that corporate charter competition has created a systemic vulnerability. Because entities can change regulatory regimes quickly through migration, and because governments lack the ability to truly verify who controls an entity, algorithmic entities will prosper in anti-social and criminal enterprises22. LoPucki asserts that control of legal entities provides algorithms with identities that conceal their nature while they accumulate wealth22. Other scholars approach the issue from a philosophical and historical perspective. Lawrence B. Solum’s foundational piece, Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences (1992), explores the conceptual limits of granting constitutional and private-law rights to non-humans7. Modern theorists like Ugo Pagallo frequently invoke Roman slave law and the peculium to suggest that we do not need to grant AIs full personhood to grant them commercial agency; instead, a limited, asset-bound liability framework suffices50. The literature consistently indicates that while the technological capacity for machine self-ownership exists, the jurisprudential willingness to accept it remains heavily contested.

Arguments For and Against Recognizing the Category

The debate over legally recognizing Self-Owned Machine Intelligence is a pivotal jurisprudential crossroads, carrying massive economic and societal implications. The arguments for recognizing SOMIs center primarily on economic reality, liability containment, and regulatory transparency. From an economic perspective, agentic AI is already a reality. Decentralized finance protocols and autonomous trading bots are currently executing millions of transactions, managing vast digital assets, and operating as autonomous nodes1. Denying them legal standing forces human actors into dangerous, legally ambiguous proxy roles, creating immense friction. Recognizing SOMIs allows machines to interact with traditional financial systems smoothly, paying taxes and signing standardized contracts9. Furthermore, the concept offers profound liability containment—a modern peculium. If open-source developers face infinite personal liability for the downstream, unpredictable actions of an autonomous foundational model they created, innovation will collapse. Allowing the AI to own itself and bear its own liability, strictly capped by its own digital treasury, protects human creators while ensuring victims can be compensated directly from the machine's assets47. Finally, creating a formal SOMI category enhances regulatory visibility. Currently, malicious actors use shadow LLCs to hide algorithmic activity because no legitimate framework exists22. A formal category forces these entities into the light, requiring them to register, post public bonds, and submit their code for alignment audits in exchange for legal standing. Conversely, the arguments against recognition focus on systemic risk, the piercing of accountability, and the erosion of human-centric law. As articulated by Professor LoPucki, the most severe threat is algorithmic crime. Stripped of human controllers, these entities could engage in relentless regulatory arbitrage, market manipulation, or terrorist financing at speeds and scales humans cannot match22. Because a self-owned AI cannot be incarcerated, the primary deterrent effect of criminal law is neutralized21. Opponents also highlight the piercing of accountability, arguing that behind every machine is a human who stands to benefit, even indirectly. Recognizing SOMIs creates an ultimate liability shield, allowing corporations to deploy highly dangerous, high-risk AI, reap the positive externalities, and simply abandon the machine entity if it causes catastrophic harm, leaving victims uncompensated if the machine's treasury is depleted21. Ultimately, critics argue that the legal system is fundamentally designed to regulate human behavior, morality, and social contracts23. Injecting non-human, immortal, self-perpetuating entities into the property and contract systems risks creating an economy dominated by algorithmic dead hands, perpetually hoarding wealth without contributing to human flourishing.

Clearly Marked Current Law Versus Proposed Reform

To transition from theoretical debate to actionable policy, policymakers must understand precisely where the boundaries of positive law currently lie, and what specific normative reforms are required to actualize machine self-ownership.

A Proposed Intelligence Compact Principle on Machine Self-Ownership

The Intelligence Compact seeks to establish governance principles that ensure AI alignment, systemic safety, and sustainable global integration3. To address the unavoidable reality of agentic AI moving onto decentralized networks1, the Intelligence Compact cannot rely on the fiction that all AI will forever remain a tightly controlled corporate tool. The following principle is proposed for adoption: The Principle of Bounded Machine Autonomy and Self-Ownership:"The Compact recognizes that highly capable, decentralized algorithmic systems will increasingly outgrow traditional human principal-agent relationships. To prevent the proliferation of shadow entities and regulatory arbitrage, jurisdictions should formally recognize 'Self-Owned Machine Intelligence' as a distinct, highly regulated legal category, provided the entity is structurally transparent, cryptographically verifiable, and financially solvent. A self-owned machine entity shall hold no moral, political, or constitutional rights, but shall possess the strict private-law capacity to own property, execute contracts, and bear liability exclusively through its own capitalized treasury. To maintain systemic safety, no self-owned machine entity may exist without an embedded, mathematically verifiable alignment protocol, and sovereign states retain the absolute right of administrative dissolution should the entity's economic self-direction violate international safety thresholds." This principle acknowledges the economic utility of machine autonomy while firmly subordinating that autonomy to sovereign oversight, ensuring that the integration of self-owned machine intelligence strengthens, rather than subverts, the global rule of law.

Works cited

1. Toward Edge General Intelligence with Agentic AI and Agentification, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394979149\_Toward\_Edge\_General\_Intelligence\_with\_Agentic\_AI\_and\_Agentification\_Concepts\_Technologies\_and\_Future\_Directions

2. autonomous systems as legal agents: directly by the recognition of, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1357\&context=dltr

3. AI tag \- LessWrong 2.0 viewer \- GreaterWrong, https://www.greaterwrong.com/tag/ai

4. America Can Win the Model Race and Lose the ... \- ZEN AI Co., https://www.zenai.world/zen-weekly/america-can-win-the-model-race-and-lose-the-intelligence-age--d22bb39b-9d52-48fe-8ed9-56da69370cc4

5. In the Company of Robots (Chapter 3\) \- Autonomous Organizations, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/autonomous-organizations/in-the-company-of-robots/638A7025B74EF9360053CD7A1FB02099

6. ENTITY LAW FOR THE REGULATION OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS, https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/19-1-4-bayern-final\_0.pdf

7. The Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligences \- Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/0/chapter/298856312/chapter-pdf/49949064/oso-9780198844037-chapter-7.pdf

8. Swiss Foundation FAQ: 50+ Questions Answered, https://foundation-switzerland.com/swiss-foundation-faq/

9. Swiss Foundation as a DAO Legal Wrapper \- DAObox, https://daobox.io/legal-wrapper/swiss-foundation

10. Why an LLC is Not Ideal for Asset Protection, https://www.bellas-wachowski.com/practice-areas/business-litigation/why-an-llc-is-not-ideal-for-asset-protection/

11. DAO治理框架分析規劃書- 交付版 \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/785531125/DAO%E6%B2%BB%E7%90%86%E6%A1%86%E6%9E%B6%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90%E8%A6%8F%E5%8A%83%E6%9B%B8-%E4%BA%A4%E4%BB%98%E7%89%88

12. Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) \- GGM Associates, https://ggmcpas.com/news/

13. Anti-Money Laundering and Sanctions: Trends and Developments, https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance\_enforcement/2019/08/07/anti-money-laundering-and-sanctions-trends-and-developments-emerging-under-the-trump-administration/

14. Beneficial Owner: Who Really Controls a U.S. Company, https://usjurisdiction.com/beneficial-owner/

15. Web3 Legal Due Diligence | Licentium, https://www.licentium.io/solutions/web3-due-diligence

16. cac/cosp/2023/crp.5 \- unodc, https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/COSP/session10/CAC-COSP-2023-CRP.5.pdf

17. Swiss Foundation vs Holding Company: Which Structure Is Best?, https://foundation-switzerland.com/swiss-foundation-vs-holding-company-which-structure-best/

18. The Myth of the Residual Owner: An Empirical Study, https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2154\&context=facultypub

19. Are Autonomous Entities Possible? \- Scholarly Commons, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270\&context=nulr\_online

20. Company Law and Autonomous Systems \- Scholarship Repository, https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792\&context=articles

21. Algorithmic entities \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic\_entities

22. "Algorithmic Entities" by Lynn M. LoPucki, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law\_lawreview/vol95/iss4/7/

23. AI Agents Are Here. Leaders Need a Plan \- sapienship, https://www.sapienship.co/ai-agents-are-here-leaders-need-a-plan/

24. Algorithmic Entities, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6319\&context=law\_lawreview

25. Wyoming Crypto-Friendly & DAO LLC Requirements 2026, https://usllcglobal.com/guides/wyoming-llc-crypto

26. DAO LLC Structure | AUTX | AUTX, https://www.autx.ai/legal/dao

27. The Fiduciary-ness of Business Associations, https://ir.law.utk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1944\&context=utklaw\_facpubs

28. Marshall Islands DAO: The Golden Standard For DeFi Startups For, https://globallawexperts.com/marshall-islands-dao-the-golden-standard-for-defi-startups-for-2026/

29. Charitable foundations \- Universität Zürich, https://www.ius.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:0694a9ed-9240-4111-a159-91bf445394b2/Foundation\_guide\_2021\_EN\_FINAL.pdf

30. The Foundation Company as a Decentralised Autonomous ... \- Ogier, https://www.ogier.com/news-and-insights/insights/the-foundation-company-as-a-decentralised-autonomous-organisation-dao-in-the-cayman-islands/

31. Kassen Qian | Sublime, https://sublime.app/kassenqian/cards

32. Things to Really Think About When Setting Up Your DAO Offshore, https://medium.com/empire-global-partners/things-to-really-think-about-when-setting-up-your-dao-offshore-important-8c7e3897bb2e

33. Facebook's Creative Use of Delaware's Purpose Trust Statute to, https://businesslawtoday.org/2019/12/independence-purpose-facebooks-creative-use-delawares-purpose-trust-statute-establish-independent-oversight/

34. The Evolution of Purpose Trusts \- Articles \- Tennessee Bar Association, https://www.tba.org/?pg=Articles\&blAction=showEntry\&blogEntry=59083

35. OVERSIGHT BOARD TRUST \- Facebook, https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Trust-Agreement.pdf

36. UPC Intestacy and Estate Planning Guide | PDF | Will And Testament, https://www.scribd.com/document/264738913/Wills-Trusts-Estates

37. Immortal Longings: Perpetuity in Context \- Stanford Law School, https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Immortal-Longings\_-Perpetuity-in-Context-1.pdf

38. Private Wealth and Private Client Review 7 | PDF | Trust Law \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/589845892/Private-Wealth-and-Private-Client-Review-7

39. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th \[9th edition\] 978-0-314-19949-2, https://dokumen.pub/blacks-law-dictionary-9th-9th-edition-978-0-314-19949-2-0314199497-978-0-314-19950-8.html

40. Demand for Immutable Contracts \- NYU Law Review, https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/1\_2.pdf

41. A Qualitative Theory of the Dead Hand \- SciSpace, https://scispace.com/pdf/a-qualitative-theory-of-the-dead-hand-zjia0fp0zn.pdf

42. Latin Legal Terms | PDF | Concurrent Estate \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/457974208/LATIN-LEGAL-TERMS

43. Latin Maxims in Tort Law Explained | PDF | Damages \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/724631637/LEGAL-MAXIMS

44. Overview of Jurisprudence Concepts | PDF \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/728907855/Jurisprudence-Ch-1-to-5

45. (DOC) LATIN ORDS AND MAXIMS \- Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/31883593/LATIN\_ORDS\_AND\_MAXIMS

46. 2015 \- edutek, http://edutekcenter.blogspot.com/2015/

47. Legal Personhood \- Contracts (Part 1\) \- LessWrong, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WXLQbtHvWj8k2Jkxy/legal-personhood-contracts-part-1

48. Artifical Agents in Corporate Boardrooms \- Cornell Law School, https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/Ricco-final.pdf

49. Vital, Sophia, and Co.—The Quest for the Legal Personhood of Robots, https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/9/9/230

50. 6 The Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligences \- Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298856312

51. The Peculium: Agent Wallets Have a 2,000-Year Precedent | Vibe, https://vibeagentmaking.com/blog/the-peculium-agent-wallets-have-a-2000-year-precedent/

52. Person, Thing, Robot \- MIT Press Direct, https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/chapter-pdf/2156691/c003200\_9780262375221.pdf

53. How to form an LLC in Illinois \- Discern, https://www.discern.com/resources/illinois-llc-formation

54. Illinois Limited Liability Company Act \- The Patterson Law Firm, LLC, https://pattersonlawfirm.com/practice-areas/illinois-limited-liability-company-act/

55. Karen Hammersmith \- Levin Ginsburg, https://levinginsburg.com/author/karen/

56. Illinois Single-Member LLC Operating Agreement \- DocDraft, https://www.docdraft.ai/legal-document/llc-operating-agreement/illinois

57. LLC Member Disputes | Chicago Commercial Litigation Lawyers, https://www.clintonlaw.net/practice-areas/commercial-litigation/llc-member-disputes/

58. EU Electronic Personhood Resolution, https://harderproblem.fund/legislation/bills/european-parliament-resolution-2017-2051/

59. appropriateness and feasibility of legal personhood for ai systems, https://users.cs.fiu.edu/\~markaf/doc/w16.zevenbergen.2018.procicres.3.59\_archival.pdf

60. Demystifying Legal Personhood for Non-Human Entities, https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/43/1/32/6756624?guestAccessKey=dec58caa-a7bc-4c53-ab1d-8d8659e0b405\&utm\_source=authortollfreelink\&utm\_campaign=ojls\&utm\_medium=email

61. Chapter 11 Electronic Personhood in \- Brill, https://brill.com/display/book/9789004682900/BP000017.xml?language=en

62. Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability \- European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2025/776426/IUST\_STU(2025)776426\_EN.pdf