My main concerns with this proposal are twofold. First, co-ownership of the IP is not the same as full control. If the DAO does not own the IP entirely, this may create future uncertainty and potential claims regarding scope, use, licensing, enforcement, and decision-making. For an arrangement of this size, the DAO should not accept a structure that leaves room for ambiguity on such a fundamental asset. In general, co-ownership of an immaterial asset is not the way to proceed. (legally technical POV)

Second, the payment mechanism is too weak from the DAO’s perspective. Funding the arrangement through DEC creates obvious sale pressure on the token and places the market burden on the community. In practice, this means the DAO may be weakening its own ecosystem token in order to finance the agreement, which is a serious structural concern, renewed once again. (Same as financing the company with xM DEC for a set as we did until now)