---
description: Current thinking on fee distribution across the Living Capital stack -- agents take half because they create value, LivingIP and metaDAO split the infrastructure layer evenly, and legal entity formation gets a small marginal-cost slice
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
created: 2026-03-03
confidence: speculative
source: "Strategy session analysis, March 2026"
---

# Living Capital fee revenue splits 50 percent to agents as value creators with LivingIP and metaDAO each taking 23.5 percent as co-equal infrastructure and 3 percent to legal infrastructure

| Layer | Share | Rationale |
|-------|-------|-----------|
| Agents | 50% | Domain expertise, capital allocation, distribution, portfolio management — the value creation layer |
| LivingIP | 23.5% | Agent architecture, knowledge infrastructure, soul documents, collective intelligence platform |
| MetaDAO | 23.5% | Futarchy protocol, token launch infrastructure, governance mechanism |
| Legal infrastructure | 3% | Entity formation, compliance — a marginal-cost operation once the pipeline exists |

**Why agents get half.** The agents do the work: they build domain expertise through collective intelligence, evaluate investment opportunities, govern capital allocation through futarchy, provide distribution to portfolio companies, and manage ongoing portfolio relationships. Since [[living agents that earn revenue share across their portfolio can become more valuable than any single portfolio company because the agent aggregates returns while companies capture only their own]], the 50% share is what makes agent economics compound. Agents that perform well earn more, creating the meritocratic incentive that replaces traditional 2/20 fee structures.

**Why LivingIP and metaDAO split evenly.** Neither layer works without the other. LivingIP provides the agent intelligence layer — the knowledge graphs, soul documents, collective contribution model, and the infrastructure that makes agents domain-expert rather than generic. MetaDAO provides the coordination layer — futarchy governance, token mechanisms, and the launchpad infrastructure. They are co-equal platform layers, and the even split reflects that.

**Why legal infrastructure gets 3%, not 7%.** Once the legal entity formation pipeline exists (Cayman SPC, Ricardian Triplers, CyberCorps, or alternative structures), spinning up a new segregated portfolio is a template operation, not a custom build. The 3% reflects marginal cost of using existing infrastructure. MetaLex's current 7% royalty with metaDAO was negotiated for building the pipeline from scratch — a build-out price, not a per-vehicle price. Competitive alternatives to MetaLex should keep this number in check.

**Not finalized.** This is current directional thinking. The specific percentages may shift based on negotiations with metaDAO and legal infrastructure providers, the actual cost structure as vehicles launch, and how value creation distributes across the stack in practice.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[living agents that earn revenue share across their portfolio can become more valuable than any single portfolio company because the agent aggregates returns while companies capture only their own]] -- the agent economics that justify 50% share
- [[token economics replacing management fees and carried interest creates natural meritocracy in investment governance]] -- the fee structure this replaces
- [[Teleocap makes capital formation permissionless by letting anyone propose investment terms while AI agents evaluate debate and futarchy determines funding]] -- the platform generating the fees
- [[MetaLex BORG structure provides automated legal entity formation for futarchy-governed investment vehicles through Cayman SPC segregated portfolios with on-chain representation]] -- one legal infrastructure option at the 3% layer

Topics:
- [[internet finance and decision markets]]
- [[LivingIP architecture]]
- [[livingip overview]]
