...
Members may consume AI services but are not considered consumers of a company. The benefits are available as a consequence of Trust membership. This approach differs from receiving market services from a company focused on increasing shareholder interests, even if such a controlled entity makes a consumer a member eventually, as many assert that in future, their service offering might turn into not-for-profit, public co-operative or open source models, etc. A member is different to a consumer because a member may also be a contributor.
One has to look at the root entities, how they are organized and the flow of funds to the beneficial owners.
...
Members are not just consumers of a company; they become beneficiaries through their membership with the Trust. So, membership comes first in the way that a beneficiary relationship is created with more control, where the beneficiary can amend the service policy as well by simply configuring data residency.
In the case of the Open Constitution AI network, the only market services involved are authentication, authorization, and accessibility(AAA) to the service itself. Once a member achieves AAA, the trust mechanism converts the member into a beneficiary, and there are no more market services that humans can engage in with the network across different jurisdictions. The jurisprudence is with the beneficiary when it concerns the meta data associated with human consciousness as it moves across different jurisdictions.
This is different from the secondary scenario of the service provider-consumer relationship, where constraints do not allow for the provision of such a harmonization and free flow of beneficiary services across different jurisdiction claimants.
...