They're being very open about the legal structuring too, with open source legal docs and agreements.

https://subvert.fm/changelog/

How in the world is it enshittification if there's no noticeable change to users? Nothing got shittier, so doesn't that by definition mean it's not enshittification?

It's structured as a multi-stakeholder cooperative, from what I understand.

"Building an artist-owned platform is a complex challenge, but it’s one we are uniquely positioned to solve. Our growing coalition includes founders of Ampled, a project that helped pioneer the concept of cooperative platforms, as well as artists, music industry professionals, and specialists in cooperative law and platform economics. "

From a introductory blog post.

https://subvert.fm/blog/a-collectively-owned-bandcamp-succes...

More on the co-op model in the FAQ.

https://subvert.fm/docs/what-does-it-mean-to-join-the-co-op/

would this be like open-collective for musicians?

I could see the economics working similar to OpenCollective, but different governance. I know OC announced a restructuring recently, but I don't think it's a co-op model.

Ah never mind, read through the site a bit more. They are aiming to be the Mondragon [1] of music. The co-op modal seems interesting, so is socially beneficial corp. In the end of day it is all about implementation. It is nice that there are lawyers and economists involved, but are the founders sound artists? have they toured? run a music venue? Asking for the founding fee of $100 seems quite a bit much, but then again does seems a bit like the vibe coming from LA area who is out of touch with the rest of the world.

[1]https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/

I'm glad to see new concepts emerge like this that challenge the governance and benefit of platforms by shareholder corporations for their own self-interested purposes.

I joined as a "Founding Supporter" of the Subvert co-op last night when I saw a post on my Twitter (X) feed.

I really hope to see more tech cooperatives in the future. The dominant paradigm of neo-fiefdom tech platforms is both tired and uninspiring.

Spend an hour in San Francisco and you'll see multiple.

This is called criminal negligence

It's why the standard for negligence is "known or should have known" i.e. the person has enough experience or education to have known better. It's probably harder to prove than it sounds.

should have known IE the person is operating in a subject/domain where they're expected to know certain things, regardless of their own experience, like deep sea diving

based on communique both to and from the CEO, the CEO did, in fact, know, that the vessel was not certified to do what it was doing, and that there were safety risks to it

As a founder of a SaaS company that was formed as Delaware PBC, I will say that this route does make it quite hard to follow the traditional fundraising path.

VCs are spooked by anything that’s not your run-of-the-mill C Corp. PBCs are hard to get off the ground.

There are many people in the co-op space, in the U.S. and abroad, working leverage technology to promote a more collectivist economy.

Co-op start-ups have a surprisingly low rate of failure, relative to traditional corporate structures.

I had the opportunity to talk with the Journey team a few weeks ago, and I really appreciate their product and approach.

We're going to be using Journey as an augmentation to our pitch process for investors who want tailored/detailed data than is usually available in your standard pitch deck.

Keep up the great work, Journey Team!

Thanks -- lots of interesting "fundraising Journeys" in the wild now. Here to help if you need anything or email us if you would like to chat with other founders using Journey similar use cases for any inspiration.

I went through Capsim (https://www.capsim.com/) as a part of my MBA program. It covers the simulation of R&D, Marketing, Production, and Finance - not so much Economics.