Skip to content

Research prompt

Title
Long-term governance and economic models for LEMM Vault & LEMM Studio

1. Context and assumptions

Assume the following:

  • LEMM is a community-owned, clean, training-only music dataset and model ecosystem, targeting a global audience of creators, developers, and end-users.
  • LEMM Vault is the long-term “memory” layer:
  • Stores, vets, and protects community-contributed music, stems, MIDI, and metadata.
  • Enforces that contributed works are clean, consented, and used for training-only (no redistribution or resale of raw works).
  • Maintains rights, revocation, lineage, and auditability.
  • LEMM Studio is the “music-producing” layer:
  • A family of models and apps (text-to-music, symbolic generation, remix tools, etc.) trained (in part) on the Vault.
  • Exposes interfaces for creators, consumers, and developers (e.g., web app, API, plug-ins).
  • Is expected to become economically significant if successful: subscription revenue, usage-based revenue, B2B licensing, etc.
  • A v0 technical spec for Vault and Studio already exists, focused on:
  • Clean data ingestion and vetting.
  • Training-only usage and safety.
  • Lineage and audit.
  • Minimal non-exploitative licensing for users of the Studio.
  • This research is about the long-term governance and economic architecture that sits on top of that v0 tech spec and can evolve over 5–10+ years.

You are designing governance and economics for both Vault and Studio together as a single ecosystem, not two unrelated products.

2. Objectives

Design and compare credible long-term governance and economic models for LEMM that:

  1. Keep LEMM genuinely community-owned and non-exploitative at scale.
  2. Align incentives between:
  3. Vault contributors (people/orgs whose music powers the models),
  4. Studio builders (devs, product teams, operators),
  5. Studio users (creators using the tools),
  6. Funders and infrastructure providers.
  7. Are compatible with:
  8. Training-only commitments for Vault content.
  9. Strong safety, privacy, and rights revocation mechanisms.
  10. International legal and regulatory realities (especially EU and US).
  11. Provide sustainable economics:
  12. Funding for infra, maintenance, and governance operations.
  13. Fair and understandable participation in upside for contributors.
  14. Clear, simple economic flows for users and partners.
  15. Include a migration path from a minimal v0 (founder-run) setup to a more democratic and robust long-term governance structure.

The end result should be 2–4 complete candidate architectures plus a recommended target design and migration plan.

3. Scope and non-goals

In scope:

  • Governance for:
  • Data and rights in the Vault.
  • Model training and deployment using Vault data.
  • Policies governing Studio products, APIs, and partners.
  • Economic flows:
  • How value created by Studio (and any other LEMM-powered tools) is shared, reinvested, or allocated.
  • Contributor participation in upside (royalty-like flows, revenue shares, profit shares, usage-based weights, etc.).
  • Funding sources (donations, grants, revenue, equity, etc.).
  • Organizational forms:
  • Non-profit/foundation, cooperative, steward-owned structures, dual entities, etc.
  • Optional on-chain or cryptographic primitives (only if genuinely justified and legally realistic).
  • Long-term risks:
  • Governance capture.
  • Centralization and mission drift.
  • Over-complex or legally fragile economic mechanisms.
  • Regulatory exposure (e.g. securities law, KYC/AML, employment/tax implications).

Out of scope:

  • Detailed technical implementation of Vault and Studio (assume v0 tech spec).
  • Token price speculation or anything that requires financial promotion.
  • Jurisdiction-specific tax optimization details (only high-level considerations).

4. Key design questions

Structure your research around the following question clusters.

4.1. What does “community-owned LEMM” actually mean in structure?

  1. Compare at least three ownership/governance paradigms for LEMM:
  2. A non-profit foundation controlling Vault and Studio.
  3. A cooperative / data cooperative with contributors as members.
  4. A dual structure: foundation (mission) + company (execution), with formal obligations between them.
  5. Optional: a heavily on-chain (DAO-like) model – but only if it can be made legally and operationally credible.
  6. For each paradigm, answer:
  7. Who ultimately controls:
    • Vault policies (what gets in, what gets out)?
    • Training and deployment of models?
    • Studio product decisions and pricing?
  8. How do stakeholders (contributors, builders, users, funders) get representation or voice?
  9. How does the structure resist:
    • Capture by a single corporate actor?
    • Speculative hijacking?
    • Long-term drift away from “clean, non-exploitative” principles?

Deliverable: a comparison table of governance models with pros/cons, and an initial ranking for LEMM’s context.

4.2. Vault-specific governance and rights representation

  1. How should Vault contributors be represented long-term?
  2. Individual membership vs. pool/collective representation.
  3. One-person-one-vote vs. stake/usage-weighted vs. hybrid.
  4. How to incorporate institutional contributors (labels, libraries, ensembles) without crowding out individuals.
  5. How should Vault policies be controlled?
  6. Admission and de-listing criteria.
  7. Changes to the definition of “clean” and “training-only”.
  8. Criteria for what models can and cannot be trained on Vault.
  9. What formal rights should contributors have beyond the technical spec?
  10. Governance rights (vote, veto, propose).
  11. Economic rights (to what, exactly, and under which conditions?).
  12. Transparency rights (what they can see about usage and models).
  13. How should revocation and rights changes impact:
  14. Governance (e.g., if a major contributor leaves).
  15. Economics (e.g., adjusting future shares, not retroactively rewriting the past).

Deliverable: a Vault governance model (or 2–3 variants) specifying: - Membership criteria and rights, - Voting/decision mechanisms, - A clear lifecycle of a contributor’s rights (join, active, inactive, revoke, exit).

4.3. Studio governance and control

  1. Who decides:
  2. Which models are launched and under what constraints?
  3. Safety and moderation standards?
  4. Pricing and commercial strategies for the Studio?
  5. How tightly should Studio and Vault governance be coupled?
  6. One shared governance body vs. separate bodies with formal contracts.
  7. What decisions should Vault be able to block in Studio (e.g., deploying a model trained on Vault data into high-risk applications)?
  8. How can Studio governance stay nimble and product-focused while respecting Vault’s long-term rights and constraints?

Deliverable: a Studio governance charter for each candidate overall model: - Which body decides what, - How Studio is accountable to Vault governance, - Escalation paths for conflicts (e.g., when business wants something Vault sees as misaligned).

4.4. Economic flows and value sharing

  1. Map out the value flows in several scenarios:
  2. B2C: individual creators pay subscription/usage fees to use Studio.
  3. B2B: companies/licensees pay for API or model access.
  4. Grants/donations: public or philanthropic funding to support LEMM.
  5. Internal: revenue reinvested into infra, R&D, safety, and contributor rewards.
  6. For each governance model, design at least one value sharing mechanism that:
  7. Gives contributors a meaningful but understandable share in upside.
  8. Does not violate training-only commitments (no per-track “sync-style” licensing of raw works).
  9. Is technically and operationally simple enough to implement and explain.
  10. Consider multiple designs:
  11. Global “Vault reward pool” funded by a fixed percentage of Studio net revenue.
  12. Usage-weighted distributions based on:
    • Training data contribution (e.g., track-level weights),
    • Measured contribution to model performance or usage (if feasible),
    • Simpler proxies (e.g., “contributor tiers”).
  13. Non-monetary value: governance power, visibility, priority access, etc.
  14. Evaluate each design against:
  15. Legal exposure (e.g., does it become a security?).
  16. Fairness and perception for small vs. large contributors.
  17. Administrative and computational cost.
  18. Robustness to gaming and adversarial behavior.

Deliverables: - Annotated diagrams of economic flows. - A shortlist of 2–3 reward mechanisms with pros/cons and a clear recommendation for a v1 and a v2 design.

4.5. Funding and capital structure

  1. Identify potential funding sources over time:
  2. Early grants/philanthropy.
  3. Community contributions (non-mandatory).
  4. Revenue reinvestment from Studio.
  5. Ethical venture/debt/partnership financing.
  6. For each candidate governance model, describe:
  7. Who can invest or provide capital, under what rights and limitations.
  8. How to ensure funders cannot override the core mission or expropriate community value.
  9. How exit or liquidity could work without turning LEMM into a purely extractive asset.
  10. Explore structures such as:
  11. Non-profit controlling a for-profit Studio entity via mission lock and golden share.
  12. Steward-owned models (e.g., capped returns, voting separation from economic rights).
  13. Cooperative capital models (member loans, revenue-based financing).
  14. Highlight:
  15. Regulatory and accounting considerations at a high level.
  16. Trade-offs between simplicity, speed of execution, and long-term alignment.

Deliverable: for each overall candidate architecture, a funding and capital strategy with: - Early-phase setup, - Growth phase, - Long-term steady state.

  1. Focus on EU and US as anchor jurisdictions:
  2. How do cooperative and foundation/charitable structures differ in each?
  3. What are the implications for revenue-sharing to global contributors?
  4. Identify red lines:
  5. When does a contributor reward scheme risk being treated as a security?
  6. What level of KYC/AML is triggered by certain types of payouts?
  7. What is realistically implementable for a global community where many contributors are individuals, sometimes minors?
  8. Propose legally cautious defaults:
  9. Conservative reward designs that reduce securities/AML risk.
  10. Clear separation between governance rights and financial rights when helpful.
  11. Reasonable thresholds or constraints on payouts.

Deliverable: a brief legal/regulatory risk map with optional fallback designs (e.g., move from monetary rewards to governance rewards if necessary).

4.7. Long-term risk and abuse analysis

  1. Identify at least:
  2. 5–10 major governance risks (capture, ossification, apathy, mission drift).
  3. 5–10 economic risks (gaming, value leakage, unfair concentration of rewards).
  4. For each risk, propose:
  5. Mitigations in governance design (checks and balances, transparency, rotation, quorum rules).
  6. Mitigations in economic design (caps, floors, clawbacks, eligibility criteria).
  7. Consider:
  8. How to handle catastrophic or controversial events (e.g., large institutional contributor is later found to be problematic).
  9. Dispute resolution mechanisms (internal panels, external arbitration, etc.).

Deliverable: a risk register with severity/likelihood estimates and mitigations tied to specific governance/economic design choices.

4.8. Migration path and phasing

  1. Design a three-phase migration path:
  2. Phase 0: founder-led or small-team governance while building initial tech and community.
  3. Phase 1: hybrid governance where community representation is added but with strong guardrails.
  4. Phase 2: mature governance where community bodies have real power over Vault and major Studio decisions, with stable economic flows.
  5. For each phase, specify:
  6. Which governance organs exist (board, councils, committees).
  7. What decisions they control and what remains centralized.
  8. How and when transitions are triggered (e.g., usage milestones, revenue milestones, time-based milestones).
  9. Ensure that changes are:
  10. Understandable for contributors and users.
  11. Legally and operationally realistic.
  12. Reversible/evolvable where necessary, while maintaining trust and commitments.

Deliverable: a timeline and transition design with clear criteria for moving from one phase to the next.

5. Required outputs

At the end of the research, produce:

  1. Option space overview
  2. 2–4 end-to-end candidate architectures combining:
    • Governance structure for Vault and Studio,
    • Economic flows and reward mechanisms,
    • Funding and capital strategies,
    • Legal/regulatory framing.

  3. Each with diagrams and concise narrative.

  4. Recommended target design

  5. A single recommended long-term architecture for LEMM Vault + Studio.

  6. Rationale vs alternatives, including why some attractive ideas were rejected.

  7. Migration plan

  8. A phased roadmap from today’s v0 spec to the target design.

  9. Key milestones, triggers, and early experiments.

  10. Risk & mitigation dossier

  11. Risk register for governance and economics.

  12. Short plan for monitoring and iterating on the design as real-world data comes in.

  13. Implementation checklist

  14. A minimal “first 12–24 months” checklist:
    • Which legal entities to create and in what order.
    • Which economic mechanisms to launch in v1 vs defer to v2.
    • Which internal roles or bodies must be staffed/constituted (board, councils, reviewers, committees).

6. Constraints and design principles

Throughout the research and design, enforce these principles:

  • No back-door exploitation: avoid structures where, in practice, one actor can control or appropriate the Vault or Studio against community interest.
  • Legally conservative defaults: prioritize designs that are robust to regulatory scrutiny in major jurisdictions.
  • Simplicity where possible: avoid overly complex mechanisms that are impossible to explain to typical contributors or users.
  • Global inclusivity: treat contributors and users as global by default; do not assume EU/US-only.
  • Alignment with “clean” and “training-only” commitments: never propose economic mechanisms that require breaking those commitments (e.g., selling raw tracks or personal data).

End with a synthesized, concrete blueprint that a founding team could use to brief legal counsel, co-founders, and early contributors on “how LEMM works” as a community-owned Vault + Studio ecosystem over the long term.