You want to create something that doesn't really exist yet:

A structure where:

• Talented people have financial security (UBI-like support)

• Freedom to pursue their passions and directions

• But their work collectively creates real societal value

• Not a company, not academia, not a non-profit

• Something new

This is closer to:

• A research lab meets artist collective

• Bell Labs model but for indie researchers

• Y Combinator Research but sustainable

• A modern Renaissance workshop

The Core Tension: You want to give people freedom (UBI, no direction) AND ensure collective impact (solving real problems, creating value).

These seem contradictory but they're not—if structured correctly.

Academia:

• Freedom to research

• Intellectual community

• Publish or perish pressure

• Grant writing treadmill

• Divorced from real-world impact

• Not financially sustainable outside universities

Corporate R&D:

• Financial stability

• Resources and infrastructure

• No real freedom (serving company goals)

• IP owned by company

• Risk-averse, quarterly thinking

• Not about societal value

Non-Profit Research:

• Mission-aligned

• Some intellectual freedom

• Dependent on grants/donations

• Constant fundraising

• Often narrow focus

• Hard to sustain team long-term

Startups:

• Can pursue big visions

• Ownership of work

• Pressure to exit/scale

• VC timelines and expectations

• Often pivot away from original mission

• Not about sustainable creativity

A Research Collective that:

• Provides sustainable income (UBI-like)

• Freedom to pursue interests

• Intellectual community and collaboration

• Creates real societal value

• Maintains individual ownership/credit

• Not dependent on any single funding source

• Self-sustaining long-term

This is really hard. But not impossible.

You can't FORCE people to create societal value. But you can create conditions where:

1. Selection: You choose people who naturally want to solve meaningful problems

2. Environment: You create culture where impactful work is valued and celebrated

3. Feedback: You have mechanisms to surface and amplify high-impact work

4. Resources: You direct resources toward work showing real-world traction

5. Community: Peer accountability and inspiration drive quality

The model:

• Give people baseline UBI + freedom

• Create culture that celebrates impact

• Amplify and resource what's working

• Let low-impact work naturally fade

• Trust that talented, mission-aligned people will do meaningful work when given freedom

This is how the best research labs have always worked.

Structure:

• Researchers given freedom to pursue interests

• Basic income + resources provided

• Mix of fundamental and applied research

• Loose connection to parent company goals

• Peer culture of excellence

Results:

• 9 Nobel Prizes

• Transistor, laser, Unix, C, information theory

• Fundamental advances that shaped the world

Why it worked:

• Financial backing from AT&T monopoly

• Hired brilliant people and left them alone

• Culture of scientific excellence

• Long-term thinking (decades, not quarters)

Why it ended:

• AT&T breakup removed sustainable funding

• Short-term pressure increased

• Model wasn't self-sustaining

Structure:

• Researchers exploring future of computing

• Freedom to pursue visions

• Funded by Xerox corporate profits

• Mix of individual and collaborative projects

Results:

• GUI, mouse, Ethernet, laser printing

• Smalltalk, object-oriented programming

• Foundations of modern computing

Why it worked:

• Visionary leadership (Bob Taylor, Alan Kay)

• Hired world-class talent

• Freedom to explore without immediate commercialization

• Collaborative environment

Why it faded:

• Xerox didn't commercialize innovations

• Corporate pressure to show "results"

• Brain drain to Apple, Microsoft, etc.

Structure:

• Independent research org funded by YC

• Researchers given salary + freedom

• No pressure to start companies

• Focus on long-term, high-impact research

Projects:

• Basic income study

• OpenAI (originally)

• Various fundamental research

Why it didn't last:

• Dependent on YC funding

• Wound down when YC priorities shifted

• No self-sustaining model

Structure:

• Non-profit research lab

• Mission: Beneficial AGI for humanity

• Researchers given freedom and resources

• Funded by philanthropic donations

Why it worked (initially):

• Clear mission attracted top talent

• Resources to do ambitious research

• Freedom from commercial pressure

• Published openly, advanced the field

Why it changed:

• Needed massive capital for compute

• Shifted to capped-profit model

• Microsoft partnership changed dynamics

• Commercial pressure increased

Common Success Factors:

1. Sustainable funding source (not dependent on single patron)

2. Mission-aligned talent selection

3. Culture of excellence and peer accountability

4. Long-term time horizons

5. Balance of freedom and focus

Common Failure Points:

1. Dependent on single funding source

2. Pressure for short-term commercial results

3. Loss of founding vision/culture

4. No mechanism to sustain financially

Layer 1: Economic Engine (40% of collective energy)

• Commercial work that funds everything

• Could be: productized services, open-source businesses, strategic consulting

• Clear, efficient, not the main mission

• Generates sustainable revenue

Layer 2: Research Lab (40% of collective energy)

• Individual researchers pursuing their interests

• UBI-like support from Layer 1 profits

• Freedom to explore, experiment, create

• No immediate pressure for commercial results

Layer 3: Impact Amplification (20% of collective energy)

• Surface and amplify promising research

• Help researchers ship and distribute work

• Connect research to real-world applications

• Create feedback loops from society

For Researchers:

• Apply to join the collective

• If accepted: receive monthly stipend ($3K-$5K/month)

• Freedom to pursue research interests

• Access to: compute resources, community, mentorship

• Expected to: share work openly, contribute to community

• Own their work and IP

• Can leave anytime, can stay as long as productive

For the Collective:

• Economic engine generates $50K-$100K/month revenue

• 60% goes to researcher stipends

• 20% to shared infrastructure and resources

• 20% to collective operations and amplification

For Society:

• Research is published openly

• Tools/code released as open source

• Impact work gets amplified and distributed

• Real problems get solved by passionate people

You can't just give anyone UBI and hope they create value. Selection is crucial.

1. Track Record of Creation

• Have they built/created/shipped things before?

• Quality matters more than quantity

• Looking for makers, not just thinkers

2. Intrinsic Motivation

• Do they create because they HAVE to?

• Or because it might make money/get famous?

• People who can't NOT create are who you want

3. Problem Awareness

• Do they understand real problems in the world?

• Are they connected to actual pain points?

• Not just building cool tech for its own sake

4. Community Alignment

• Do they vibe with the collective culture?

• Will they contribute to others' work?

• Are they generous with knowledge?

5. Ability to Ship

• Do they finish things?

• Or just start and abandon?

• Looking for finishers, not just starters

Stage 1: Expression of Interest

• What do you want to work on?

• Why does it matter?

• What have you built before?

• What would you do with freedom and stability?

Stage 2: Trial Project (1-3 months)

• Small stipend ($1K-$2K/month)

• Work on proposed project

• See: do they ship? do they engage? do they contribute?

• Low-risk way to assess fit

Stage 3: Full Membership

• If trial goes well, join as full member

• Full stipend, full access to resources

• Renewable based on contribution and fit

Stage 4: Continuous Membership

• Can stay as long as they're engaged and contributing

• No forced exits based on arbitrary timelines

• Self-selected departure when ready for next chapter

• Community health maintained through culture, not ejection

The Goal:

• 10-20 members with different roles and strengths

• Small enough to maintain culture

• Large enough for diverse collaboration

• Rolling admission, not fixed cohorts

• Mix of personality types and work styles

1. Selection Does Most of the Work

• Choose people who naturally care about impact

• Self-selection: people who just want free money won't apply

• Mission-aligned from the start

2. Create Visibility and Feedback

• Regular (monthly) sharing of work in progress

• Open demos and discussions

• Community feedback and questions

• Natural pressure to do meaningful work

3. Resource Allocation as Signal

• Baseline UBI for everyone

• Additional resources for high-impact work

• Community can vote on resource allocation

• Market-like signals without control

4. Peer Accountability

• Researchers respect peers, not authority

• Culture where high-impact work is celebrated

• Natural motivation to contribute meaningfully

• Don't want to let the community down

5. Exit with Grace

• If someone's work isn't creating value, that's OK

• They can exit gracefully after reasonable time

• No shame, just not the right fit right now

• Keeps collective focused without being harsh

Set research agendas or directions

• Researchers choose their own paths

Require deliverables or milestones

• Trust the process, good work takes time

Demand commercial results

• Impact ≠ profit

Own or control their IP

• Researchers own their work

Micromanage or track hours

• Freedom means actual freedom

Create culture of impact and excellence Provide feedback and perspective Celebrate and amplify meaningful work Connect researchers to resources and opportunities Maintain community standards through peer accountability

You need $30K-$50K/month to support 5-10 researchers. How do you generate this sustainably?

Structure:

• Researchers build open source tools/frameworks

• Core is free and open

• Revenue from: enterprise support, hosting, premium features

• 40% of team time on commercial side

Example:

• Researcher builds AI framework (passion project)

• Becomes popular in community

• Companies need: hosting, support, custom features

• Collective offers these services

• Revenue funds more research

Companies Doing This:

• GitLab: Open source + paid hosting/features

• Temporal: Open source workflow engine + cloud

• PostHog: Open source analytics + paid hosting

Structure:

• Researchers are world-class experts

• Companies pay for: advice, audits, strategy

• High hourly rates ($300-$500/hr)

• Limited hours (researchers do this 20-40% time)

Example:

• Company building web3 product

• Needs expert guidance

• Pays collective for researcher time

• Researcher gets to see real problems

• Company gets world-class advice

• Win-win

Key:

• Consulting informs research (real-world problems)

• Research makes consulting more valuable (cutting-edge expertise)

• Virtuous cycle

Structure:

• Researchers identify common problems

• Create standardized solutions

• Sell as packages, not custom work

• Efficient, scalable, funds research

Example:

• "Web3 Security Audit: $25K"

• "AI Integration Package: $30K"

• "Gamification Architecture: $20K"

• Researchers developed frameworks, team delivers

Structure:

• Apply for research grants (government, foundations, protocols)

• Use grants to fund specific projects

• Revenue work fills gaps

• Diversified funding sources

Grant Opportunities:

• Ethereum Foundation grants

• Protocol Labs grants

• NSF Small Business Innovation Research

• Fast Grants (various foundations)

• Corporate research grants

Structure:

• Build platform that enables others

• Revenue from transactions/subscriptions

• Network effects make it valuable

• Researchers use profits to fund their work

Example:

• Marketplace connecting researchers ↔️ problems

• Platform for distributed innovation

• Revenue from connecting supply and demand

• Meta: researchers building platform for researchers

Combination:

• 50% Open source businesses (sustainable, aligned)

• 30% Strategic consulting (high-value, limited time)

• 20% Grants (for specific public good projects)

Why this works:

• Diversified (not dependent on one source)

• Sustainable (recurring revenue)

• Aligned (commercial work informs research)

• Scalable (can grow without linear time)

Economic Engine:

• Define 2-3 productized services

• Price them properly ($20K-$40K each)

• Launch consulting offering ($350/hr)

• Target: $30K revenue, proving model works

Research Program:

• Open applications for first cohort

• Select 2-3 researchers for trial

• Provide modest stipend ($1K-$2K/month)

• Set up infrastructure (compute, tools)

Community:

• Define culture and values

• Create sharing mechanisms (weekly demos)

• Build basic documentation

• Establish communication channels

Economic Engine:

• Deliver 2-3 projects successfully

• Refine service offerings

• Apply for first grants

• Target: $40K-$50K/month revenue

Research Program:

• Trial researchers ship first projects

• Evaluate: are they creating value?

• Convert successful trials to full members

• Full stipend ($3K-$4K/month)

Community:

• Regular demo days (bi-weekly)

• Start publishing research openly

• Build external visibility

• Connect with other researchers/labs

Economic Engine:

• Consistent $60K-$80K/month revenue

• Launch first open source product

• Secure 1-2 grants

• Build repeatable processes

Research Program:

• Support 5-7 researchers full-time

• 2-3 major projects shipped publicly

• Growing reputation for quality

• Second cohort applications open

Community:

• External community forming around work

• Regular content and publications

• Speaking engagements

• Partnerships with other labs/institutions

Year End Goals:

• $500K-$800K annual revenue

• 5-7 researchers supported

• 3-5 significant projects shipped

• Proven sustainable model

• Applications for next cohort

Individual Decisions (Researcher Autonomy):

• What to work on

• How to approach problems

• When to ship or pivot

• Own research direction

Community Decisions (Rough Consensus):

• Who to admit to collective

• Resource allocation beyond baseline

• Community standards and culture

• Strategic direction of collective

Operational Decisions (Designated Roles):

• Financial management

• Legal/administrative

• Infrastructure maintenance

• External communications

Consent-Based Governance:

• Proposals shared with community

• Discussion period

• If no strong objections, proceed

• Trust by default, object when necessary

Transparent Finances:

• All revenue and expenses public (within collective)

• Researchers know where money comes from and goes

• Democratic decisions on major expenditures

• Trust through transparency

Rotating Responsibilities:

• No permanent hierarchy

• Roles rotate among members

• Everyone contributes to operations

• Shared ownership and responsibility

Peer Review:

• Work reviewed by peers, not management

• Feedback culture, not approval culture

• High standards maintained through community

• Excellence through peer accountability

Output Metrics (What's Created):

• Projects shipped publicly

• Open source contributions

• Publications and content

• Tools and resources created

Impact Metrics (Effect on World):

• Usage/adoption of tools

• Citations and references

• Community building around work

• Problems solved

Community Health:

• Researcher satisfaction

• Collaboration frequency

• Knowledge sharing

• Member retention

Financial Sustainability:

• Revenue vs. expenses

• Runway (months of reserves)

• Revenue diversity

• Growth trajectory

Hours worked

• Freedom means no time tracking

Productivity metrics

• Not a factory, it's a research lab

Publication counts

• Quality over quantity

Commercial success

• Impact ≠ profit

Comparison/ranking

• Not a competition between researchers

Someone takes stipend but doesn't create value

Prevention:

• Strong selection process

• Trial period before full membership

• Clear expectations (even if loose)

• Peer accountability

If It Happens:

• Honest conversation

• Maybe they're stuck, can you help?

• If truly not working out, graceful exit

• 6-month notice, help them transition

• No shame, just not right fit

Need for revenue conflicts with research freedom

Mitigation:

• Keep economic engine separate

• Clear boundaries: 40% commercial, 60% research

• Commercial work informs but doesn't dictate

• Multiple revenue sources (diversification)

If Pressure Increases:

• Transparent discussion with community

• Collective decision on balance

• Might need to adjust ratios temporarily

• But never lose core mission

Collective loses focus on impact over time

Prevention:

• Regular reflection on values

• Selection maintains culture

• Peer accountability to mission

• Celebrate impact, not just output

If It Happens:

• Return to founding principles

• Honest assessment: are we doing meaningful work?

• May need to exit members not aligned

• Reset and recommit

Revenue drops, can't support everyone

Preparation:

• Build 6-12 month runway

• Diversified revenue sources

• Transparent finances so everyone sees it coming

• Contingency plans

If It Happens:

• Transparent communication immediately

• Reduce stipends proportionally (everyone shares pain)

• All hands on revenue generation temporarily

• Help members find other income if needed

• Graceful downsizing if necessary

Everyone doing their own thing, no collective value

Prevention:

• Regular sharing and demos

• Encourage collaboration

• Fund cross-researcher projects more

• Create spaces for serendipity

If It Happens:

• More structured sharing

• Identify themes and connections

• Facilitate collaboration explicitly

• May need more coordination than initially planned

1. Freedom with Purpose We give researchers freedom because we trust that talented, mission-aligned people will create meaningful work when given space to think and build.

2. Sustainable Independence We build economic engines that fund research without compromise. Independence requires financial sustainability.

3. Open by Default Research is shared openly. Tools are open source. Knowledge belongs to humanity. We believe in abundance, not scarcity.

4. Community Over Hierarchy No bosses, no managers. Peer accountability and collaboration. Decisions by consent. Responsibilities shared.

5. Long-Term Thinking We optimize for decades, not quarters. Real breakthroughs take time. We provide the stability to think long-term.

6. Impact Over Output We care about solving real problems, not publishing papers or hitting metrics. Quality and impact matter more than quantity.

7. Fail Forward Experiments fail. That's OK. We learn and iterate. Psychological safety enables risk-taking.

8. Selectivity and Standards High bar for admission. Excellence through selection. But once in, full support and trust.

9. Graceful Exits Not everyone is a fit forever. That's OK. We part ways with respect and support.

10. Evolution Over Perfection We'll figure it out as we go. Start with principles, adapt based on reality. Iterate the model itself.

This is extremely hard because:

• Most research labs fail financially

• Balancing freedom and impact is subtle

• Takes time to show results

• Cultural coherence is fragile

• Commercial pressure is constant

But it could work because:

• You're starting small (5-10 people)

• You understand the economic realities

• You're building sustainability from day one

• The talent wants this to exist

• Technology enables distributed collaboration

• Open source business models work now

What makes it possible now (vs. before):

• Remote work is normalized

• Open source business models proven

• Web3/AI create new opportunities

• Community-funded projects viable

• Lower costs to start and operate

• Global talent pool accessible

1. Founder Commitment

• You need to make this work for 3-5 years minimum

• Part-time won't cut it

• This is a full commitment

2. Initial Runway

• Need $50K-$100K to start

• Covers first 6-12 months while building revenue

• Can't start from zero

3. First Revenue Source

• Need to prove economic engine in first 6 months

• Can't be theoretical, must work

• This is the critical test

4. Right First Researchers

• First 2-3 people set the culture

• Choose carefully

• Better to wait for right people than fill slots

5. Patience and Iteration

• This will not work perfectly at first

• You'll need to adjust constantly

• Expect 12-18 months to find the rhythm

[ ] Write founding principles

• What is this really?

• What are the non-negotiables?

• What are we willing to adapt?

[ ] Define success

• What does this look like in 1 year?

• What about 3 years?

• What would make you proud?

[ ] Identify constraints

• How much runway do you have?

• What's your risk tolerance?

• What can you commit to?

[ ] Choose primary revenue model

• Open source business?

• Strategic consulting?

• Productized services?

• Hybrid?

[ ] Define first offering

• What can you sell in 60 days?

• What's the price?

• Who will buy it?

[ ] Set financial targets

• Month 3: $X

• Month 6: $Y

• Month 12: $Z

[ ] Draft researcher agreement

• What's the deal?

• Expectations (loose but real)

• Compensation structure

• IP ownership

• Exit terms

[ ] Create application process

• What do you ask?

• How do you evaluate?

• What's the trial structure?

[ ] Identify first candidates

• Who would be perfect first researchers?

• Reach out to gauge interest

[ ] Set up basic operations

• Legal entity

• Bank account

• Communication tools

• Project management

[ ] Create community spaces

• Where will you share work?

• How will you communicate?

• What's the rhythm?

[ ] Document everything

• Handbook with principles

• How things work

• Transparent from day one

Economic Engine:

• Launch one productized service

• Sign 2-3 clients

• Generate $30K-$40K revenue

• Prove commercial model works

Research Program:

• Recruit 2 researchers for trial

• Provide $1K-$2K/month stipend

• Support them for 3 months

• See if they ship meaningful work

Community:

• Bi-weekly demos and sharing

• Document learnings publicly

• Build external interest

• Test the culture

Decision Point:

• After 3 months, assess honestly

• Is economic engine working?

• Are researchers creating value?

• Does the model feel right?

• Go/no-go for next phase

Financial:

• $60K-$80K monthly revenue

• 6 months runway saved

• Multiple revenue streams

• Profitable operations

Research:

• 5 researchers fully supported

• 3-4 major projects shipped

• Growing external impact

• Applications for next cohort

Community:

• Strong internal culture

• External community forming

• Regular publications and sharing

• Reputation for quality work

Proof:

• Model is sustainable

• Researchers are thriving

• Impact is real

• This can work long-term

You asked: "How to tap into their talent and do meaningful work for society collectively without making them sacrifice freedom and directions?"

The answer is: You create economic sustainability that funds freedom, and you trust that freedom produces meaningful work.

But here's what makes it actually work:

1. Selection - Choose people who care about impact, not just freedom

2. Culture - Create environment where meaningful work is celebrated

3. Sustainability - Build revenue that doesn't compromise mission

4. Accountability - Peer community maintains standards organically

5. Patience - Trust that good work emerges from freedom over time

The hardest part isn't the model—it's the execution.

Most research collectives fail because:

• They run out of money (no sustainable engine)

• They lose focus (no culture of impact)

• They can't attract talent (not compelling enough)

• Founders give up (it's really hard)

But if you:

• Build the economic engine first

• Choose the right people carefully

• Create genuine freedom with light structure

• Stay committed through the hard parts

• Keep the mission front and center

Then yes, this can work.

It's hard. But it's possible.

Are you ready to commit to making this real?

What's your first move?