VISION

Initial release: 2025/12/22
Latest update: 2025/12/29

Vision events

A hypothetical event sequence toward a trusted Hub

dCorps is designed to become trusted infrastructure through observable adoption events: production entities, verifiable authority, reproducible views, and optional modules that map on-chain truth into external processes. The events below describe design intent and constraints, not a schedule or commitment.

Vision in one line: Give anyone on earth the ability to create and run a serious, transparent digitally native corporation or nonprofit in a recognized digital ecosystem, whether or not it is attached to a jurisdiction, and to optionally attach legal recognition where and when it is needed.

Roadmap notice: Events below are illustrative turning points. They are not commitments and may change based on governance decisions, audits, partner readiness, and legal constraints.

  1. Event 01

    First Hub corporation in production

    A small, stablecoin-native startup registers a Hub corporation and runs day-to-day operations through canonical wallets and tagged accounting events. Ownership, authority, and approvals are verifiable state—not only narrative policies, PDFs, and private spreadsheets.

    Signals

    • Units, roles, and executed resolutions are recorded as on-chain state.
    • Canonical wallets and tagged events produce reproducible, cash-based time-window views.
  2. Event 02

    First Hub nonprofit in production

    A small nonprofit registers a Hub nonprofit and runs donations, allocations, and board decisions on the Hub. Donors and partners can verify how funds move at least at category level, with optional evidence anchoring for material items.

    Signals

    • Donation and program wallets are canonical and publicly legible.
    • Board governance and allocation views are reproducible from tagged flows.
  3. Event 03

    Counterparty trust without jurisdiction integration

    For off-chain counterparties, auditors, and service providers, Hub-native entities adopt a governance binding document plus an authority evidence package that references on-chain roles and approvals. Material agreements are anchored by hash and tied to the approving resolution.

    Signals

    • Counterparties can verify entity identity, role bindings, and the relevant resolution record from public state.
    • Anchored agreements can be corrected via supersession, preserving a legible, non-erasing timeline.
  4. Event 04

    Pilot Step 0 (temporary): delegated filing provider bridge

    Pilot Step 0 is a temporary bridge between mainnet launch and direct jurisdiction integration. Providers perform off-chain filings under their own legal responsibilities and publish standardized on-chain attestations with evidence anchors.

    Signals

    • Reference interfaces label status clearly as “Filed via Provider (Pilot)” and never present this as recognition.
    • Provider attestations include issuer identity, validity windows, evidence anchors, and dispute/supersession signals; providers can coexist and be switched without erasing history.
  5. Event 05

    Pilot Step 1 → Step 2: jurisdiction adapters

    A jurisdiction (or an explicitly disclosed delegated operator under its supervision) pilots a disclosure, fee, and reporting module (Step 1). Where feasible, it graduates toward direct integration where recognition and registry actions are bound to module state under jurisdiction-controlled keys (Step 2).

    Signals

    • Step 1 defines eligibility, required disclosures (via anchored documents), reporting cadence, and fee collection in USDC.
    • Where feasible, the same module pattern can extend to jurisdiction-scoped settlement rails (for example local stablecoins or CBDC integrations) via disclosed gateways and explicit eligibility outputs.
    • Step 2 binds recognition status to jurisdiction-controlled keys; interfaces distinguish Step 0/1/2 states and never imply recognition from Hub state alone.
  6. Event 06

    Typed workflows and interoperable tooling

    Core operating workflows (payroll, invoicing, grants, donation allocation, vendor payments) are implemented as typed modules or standardized message families that emit category tags as part of execution.

    Signals

    • Typed workflows emit deterministic tags; free-form tags remain possible but are clearly labeled.
    • Schemas and conformance tests let many vendors serve the same entities—and let entities switch providers without losing history.
  7. Event 07

    Professional assurance becomes routine

    Auditors and assurance providers use Hub exports plus evidence anchors as standard inputs. For material flows, evidence anchoring and optional counterparty receipts reduce dependence on bespoke data rooms.

    Signals

    • Assurance reports reference specific entity, role, and event state, not screenshots.
    • Anchors and optional receipts/attestations raise integrity without making the protocol an adjudicator.
  8. Event 08

    Serious Web3 operators adopt the Hub

    A major protocol or DAO adopts a Hub entity as its canonical corporate or nonprofit container. Authority, treasury policy, and reporting become a shared, verifiable record without changing the protocol’s own governance design.

    Signals

    • Roles and resolutions move from scattered documents into a standardized entity record.
    • Partners can review consistent, comparable views across many operators without bespoke dashboards.
  9. Event 09

    Networks coordinate on shared rails

    A coalition—such as a grant network, impact fund, or procurement program—requires members to operate via Hub entities and shared module standards. Cross-entity flows become legible across the whole network, not only inside each organization.

    Signals

    • Membership criteria reference entity types and module conformance rather than bespoke forms.
    • Cross-entity flows stay traceable across members through canonical wallets and standardized tags.
  10. Event 10

    Public data and research layer

    Journalists, NGOs, and academic groups use Hub views and exports as a common reference for studying governance, financial flows, and impact over time.

    Signals

    • Longitudinal studies use standardized, machine-readable entity data rather than ad hoc collections.
    • Investigations can cite verifiable anchors and event references instead of screenshots.
  11. Event 11

    Global soft standard and infrastructure status

    Funders, networks, and some institutions begin to accept Hub-compliant disclosures and dCorps-standard reports as routine evidence. Operating without an equivalent shared record remains possible, but it carries higher friction for due diligence and coordination.

    Signals

    • Programs accept standardized disclosures, module outputs, and reproducible views as routine evidence inputs.
    • Operating without an equivalent shared record remains possible, but carries higher coordination and due diligence friction.
  12. Event 12

    DCHUB economics

    As usage grows, DCHUB secures the Hub as shared infrastructure (gas, staking, governance) and coordinates upgrades and policy over time. Protocol fees and Treasury policy exist to fund security and public goods—not to promise any financial outcome.

    Signals

    • Gas fees (`DCHUB`) and staking secure the network; protocol fees and policy aim to fund security and public goods over time.
    • Nothing in protocol economics is a promise of value accrual, liquidity, listings, or financial return.
  13. Success criteria

    What would count as “working”

    We consider this working when independent parties can verify authority, approvals, and reproducible operating or allocation views using public chain data and anchored evidence—without bespoke data rooms.

    Independent verification

    • A third party can verify authority at a time, approval trails for material actions, and reproducible views from events.

    Interoperable tooling

    • Multiple indexers and apps can serve the same entities by following schemas and passing conformance tests.

    Honest labeling

    • Interfaces distinguish digital-only entities, Step 0 provider attestations, Step 1 reporting, and Step 2 recognition without implying legal outcomes.