Latest verified engineering — 25 October 2026
Economic intent: real contributed computing work may support contractually defined participation; a technology-use event is actual licensed execution. Valuation depends on attributable revenue and costs; proposed million-unit limits and use targets are not actual issued or traded units.
25 October engineering expansion · Studio manual · Adaptive manual · Compute economy manual · Council manual
The three instruments are economically different
| Class | What is purchased | What is NOT automatically purchased |
|---|---|---|
| U — commercial use | Defined contractual permission to use data, an algorithm or delivered service. | Shares, raw data title or profit participation. |
| A — transferable rights | Specified assignment, transferable IP rights or other expressly documented economic entitlements. | A security exemption or proof of ownership by hash. |
| I — investment securities | An actual security issued by a qualified legal issuer, with rights set by its terms. | A piece of raw data or guaranteed return. |
How a single asset might support an issuer
Imagine a company whose principal business is licensing one robotics recovery dataset. Subject to incorporation, lawful rights, professional advice and securities requirements, that company could issue a class of shares. An investor’s claim would be on that issuer under its legal documents, not direct possession of the source dataset. An illustrative C$1 share price would not be a verified valuation or current offer. No proposed terms in these public pages should be taken as issued instruments.
Investment due-diligence checklist
| Information needed | Why it matters | Present status |
|---|---|---|
| Legal issuer and control persons | Confirms who is accountable for disclosures and assets | Specific issued prospectus/OM and verified issuer financials not published |
| Full audited or appropriately prepared financial statements | Explains revenue, costs, related parties, liquidity and going concern | Not established for illustrative issuer |
| Actual instrument terms | Defines units, rights, voting, dilution, dividends, resale and priority | Sample economics only; no issued security evidenced |
| Title and permitted data use | Prevents investment predicated on restricted or disputed data | Rights review remains a required condition |
| Independent asset valuation / customer traction | Tests economic assumptions, alternatives and downside | Real verified asset market comparables not supplied |
| Regulatory distribution and venue permissions | A legal offering is not a license to run a trading venue | Live public securities venue not authorised in the documentation |
| Cash custody and settlement | Prevents synthetic wallet entries being mistaken for money | No verified live client-funds reconciliation supplied |
Follow the money, not just the ticker
For any securities subscription, verify where investor funds actually go, the entity receiving them, escrow or custodian terms, whether securities are legally issued and what official register proves ownership. For commercial licensing, verify price, contract, delivery, invoice and bank reconciliation. These are separate ledgers and legal acts.
Understand the downside
- A dataset might be useful but never produce profitable customers.
- Asset value and share value are not interchangeable. Investors can lose all capital.
- A platform may have no lawful resale venue; liquidity can be zero.
- Rights can expire or be challenged; private information may be unusable even if technically available.
- Issuers may create additional shares or incur expenses and debts that dilute returns.
- Conflicts can arise among BTG, an issuer, source contributors, brokers and investors.
What the documentation cannot replace
Not a prospectus, offering memorandum, independent appraisal, current financial statement or legal eligibility decision. A sophisticated investor should require the specific issuer’s signed original offering documents, named professionals, actual audit scopes, contract rights and regulator or registration information before taking any action. No deposit instructions or investor enrolment are provided in this public library.
Regulatory compliance evidence matrix · End-to-end lifecycle
AI Creation Council and FarmNode research — audited update
The council has documented local correctness tests and a registered research backlog, not revenue, independently monetizable intellectual property, customer adoption or legally issued securities. Model output, a working test or a registered FarmNode does not create enterprise value on its own. The revised Granby success came from an engineering reviewer, not self-repair by AI.
Read the complete AI Council research guide → · Public operator manual → · Printable evidence report →
UPDATED AUDIT · 23 OCT 2026 · 18:26 UTC
Latest Council and FarmNode qualification evidence
The completed 18:26 UTC audit reports 114/114 local tests in nine suites, including the earlier 70 tests (not 184 independent results). The 34 physical-host security tests qualify policy/refusal contracts only, not three real computers. Four explicitly approved hosted routes were zero-priced at the 18:17 UTC catalogue snapshot; no authenticated hosted inference comparison was completed.
Research controller: 5,125 registered types; 2,305 registration-only bindings; 16 source-backed local methods; six original messages consolidated to four unique research requirements. Three historical source-backed evaluation packs now exist for forestry (8 holdouts), agriculture (8), and emergency-response metadata (9). These 25 recorded cases are not 25 new algorithm inventions. Forestry median-change beat naive forecasting on the recorded sample, while agriculture median-change performed worse; emergency-response checks verified historical metadata/timestamps only, not event truth or live warning decisions.
Full Council qualification report → · Download qualification PDF → · Three sector evaluator packs → · Download evaluation PDF →