Non-Profit Organisation

Hi Everyone -

We have previously all got behind the formation of a foundation for the protocol and it's assets to be under. This would allow us to be a legal entity, have a board, some structure and a generally more professional face.

The apparent blocker has been D&O insurance costs of around $100,000. This is of course focussed on the US. The obvious solution seems to not be a US-based NPO. Find somewhere without regulatory issues, and free from hassle.

This thread is to bring back peoples focus to the necessity of an NPO, in a far cheaper jurisdiction that we can quickly get off the ground as a legal entity.

  • What other jurisdictions would be suitable?
  • Where are other protocols foundations registered?
  • Where is crypto friendly?
  • Who would be willing to be a Director?
Most of this work has already been performed by the Legal working group. If I remember correctly, there is a spreadsheet listing a dozen of potential places for such organizations, with a list of the advantages and the drawbacks. We could start by going through this list. I am sure @Matt Osborne or @Shuang Leng still have it. It is maybe in a past thread too.
This should answer most of your questions.

An extra one: why would we actually need such an organization ? The future executive committee could be the face of the protocol without having an official structure. I understand the professional face it could bring. It could also maybe simplify some other aspects but I think it is worth to list them. What did you have in mind?

And in any case, it should not prevent IMO the formation of the executive committee or its equivalent.
Last edited:
Just found it. The spreadsheet is in this thread:

(See Google doc link)
I think establishing the NPO is a good first step in catalyzing the change needed to move in the right direction. I do appreciate the question regarding the necessity of the NPO vice the executive committee. For the sake of discussion, what are the roles and responsibilities of either? With the passage of the GWG proposal, is the NPO necessary if the EC is going to be the "face and voice" of the protocol? I'm open to both but participation is abysmal and worry two "organizations" will only strain manpower resources when we should be coalescing behind a single organization. Could the charter of the NPO be one where the EC are board members of said NPO?
I think we need a legal entity if we ever want to be a serious player.

It then acts as a vehicle for investment too. Who do the assets belong to?
Who’s accountable?

I propose that we set up a quick, cheap NPO outside US and the directors are the EC. Same ppl. Same secretary.

Factom Foundation raising some money directly for development or “please create account on liquid exchange and buy some FCT”?

“These are the directors contacts and physical address for Exchange/Enterprise due diligence ”. Not - “talk to bigtitsmcgee on Discord.”

I totally appreciate the groundwork the LWG achieved. Let’s pick a crypto friendly jurisdiction and act on this!
Last edited:
I agree that the legitimacy (or perception of) is key here. We've had plenty of reasons why we did not organize in the past. If it is quick, relatively inexpensive, and legitimate, then I would prefer to organize the EC as directors of the NPO.
I'm willing to explore it. As mentioned here, the new group will start a timed discussion (once we're up and running) on what the EC should look like. That'd be an excellent time to work this out and possibly add the above as a poll option.