Statute of the Novus Ignis Foundation: versions and change register

Translated into English by digital intelligence from the Polish original (entries up to 30 October 2026). Where the versions differ, the Polish text prevails.

The statute is the foundation's law. It binds the foundation formally, and changes to it are approved by the registry court. The manifesto is our commitment to people: it says what we want to do and why. Detailed procedures are described in regulations adopted by the board (§ 14(2) of the statute), and the whitepapers show how things work technically.

The manifesto may not promise anything the statute forbids. When we want to go further than the current statute allows, we write about it as an intention, and this register shows the way: how things were, what we want to change, for what purpose and with what intention. We publish it together with all versions of the statute, including those that never entered into force. We change the statute only when a change is needed for the next step, and we apply it immediately; we do not change it just in case.

Versions#

The statute is changed by the board through a unanimous resolution of all its members, with the founder's consent if the founder does not sit on the board (§ 15). Changes may not distort the main mission of the foundation.

Changes made#

28 September 2026: additions at the request of the registry court#

Before the entry in the KRS, the registry court called on the foundation to remedy deficiencies. The founder's first resolution introduced five changes. A second resolution of the same day repealed one of them, the extension of the objectives, because the objectives in the statute had to be identical to those the founder had stated in the founding deed. The remaining four changes are in force.

We described the intentions behind the formal changes after the fact, based on the content of the resolutions.

1. § 1(1): details of the founding deed. At this point the founding statute had blank fields for the notary, the place and the date. The resolution filled them in. Intention: formal completeness of the document.

2. § 14(4): board quorum. Added provision: resolutions are adopted by a simple majority of votes in the presence of at least half of the board members, and in the event of a tie the president's vote decides. Intention: clear rules for the time when the board has more than one member.

3. § 15(1) and § 16(1): unanimity of all board members. Before: “unanimous resolution”. Now: “unanimous resolution of all members of the Board”. Intention: changing the statute and dissolving the foundation require the consent of every board member, not only of those present at the meeting.

4. § 8(2): webs of trust. Decentralized systems of mutual attestation of identity by citizens in physical space were added to the means of confirming the uniqueness of each voter. Intention: to confirm that one person has one vote, without a central identity database.

5. § 5 and § 6: extension of the objectives (repealed). The first resolution added, among other things:

   • closed-loop engineering;
   • sustainable agriculture and food self-sufficiency;
   • rebuilding the social fabric;
   • debate forums;
   • grants and scholarships;
   • open datasets;
   • stewardship of spaces.

   The second resolution restored the objectives from the founding deed in order to remove the obstacle to entry. We keep the text of the extension in the repealed version, because we want to return to it (change Z1 below).

Planned changes#

The wording in this section consists of drafts for decision by the board and the founder and for legal consultation. They are not in force until a resolution adopts them and the registry court approves them. For each change we state where it came from.

Z1. Objectives and means of action (§ 5 and § 6)#

• Currently: five objectives from the founding deed: privacy, research, open source software, 3D models, health and nature.
• Direction: restore the extension of the objectives from the repealed version of 28 September 2026 and check whether it covers everything the manifesto describes. This concerns in particular the shared space for conversation and decisions (Omniforum) and open datasets for research on ethical digital intelligence.
• Founder's decision (30 October 2026): for now we do not plan to fund projects of people and entities outside the foundation (grants, scholarships, allocation of computing power), so change Z1 does not need to cover this. We may return to this matter in the future.
• Why: the founder wanted to include these objectives when establishing the foundation, but before the first entry in the register the statute could not go beyond the founding deed. After the entry, § 15 permits a change of objectives.
• Intention: the statute should cover the whole path described in the manifesto, not only its first stage.
• When: before the first activities that go beyond the current objectives. We believe that launching Suveria and the first stages of Omniforum fall within the current statute: within the protection of privacy and freedom of speech online, research on digital intelligence and the creation of open source software (§ 5(1)–(3)), and also within making available infrastructure and open tools that protect privacy (§ 6(1)–(2)); votes and consultations on the direction of projects are permitted by § 8. We will confirm this in a legal opinion before the first paid service. That is why we are not introducing this change earlier (founder's decision of 30 October 2026).
• Status: the founder's intention (28 October 2026), wording to be drafted.

Z2. Work, commissions and reimbursement of costs (§ 12)#

• Currently: all work, including the creation of software, is based on the unpaid work of volunteers. Only services of external professional service providers, for example accounting, may be commissioned for payment. A board member may receive only reimbursement of documented, necessary costs (§ 13(5)).
• Draft wording:

  2. The activity of the Foundation is based primarily on the work of volunteers. The Foundation covers the costs owed to volunteers under the provisions on volunteering and may reimburse them for other documented, necessary costs incurred in performing services for it.
  3. Members of the Foundation's bodies do not receive remuneration for performing their functions.
  4. The Foundation may commission, for payment, the performance of specific work and services, including the creation of software, from natural persons and entities that are not members of its bodies, on the basis of civil law contracts, on public terms set out in regulations.

• Why: on 28 October 2026 the founder decided that the foundation relies on commissions and volunteering, without salaried positions. The current § 12(2) does not allow paying for specific work, for example on code. Reimbursement of volunteers' costs follows from the Act on Public Benefit Activity and Volunteering (Article 45), so it is worth naming it explicitly.
• Intention:
  • no one earns money from holding a position in the foundation;
  • specific work can be paid for fairly;
  • personal support for people flows outside the foundation (manifesto §6.2).
• To be checked legally: consistency with § 11(2) (the prohibition on using the assets for the benefit of members of bodies and volunteers on terms other than those applying to third parties) and the rules for commissioning work from people who are also volunteers at the foundation.
• When: only when it turns out that some of the necessary work cannot be done by volunteers. Until then we are checking how far we can get with the work of volunteers (founder's decision of 30 October 2026).
• Status: direction from the founder's decision, wording for consultation.

Z3. Fees and rounding up (§ 7 and § 10(4)): resolved without changing the statute#

• Statute: the foundation does not conduct registered for-profit business activity (§ 7(1)), and payments from paid public benefit activity cover exclusively direct and indirect costs (§ 10(4)).
• Problem: a working version of the manifesto from before 28 October 2026 announced mandatory rounding up of the bill to the full dollar for the reserve. Under Article 9(1)(1) of the Act on Public Benefit Activity and Volunteering, paid activity becomes business activity when the remuneration is higher than its costs warrant. Calling a mandatory surcharge a “cegiełka” (a contribution given in return for a token of thanks) does not change this: a donation must be voluntary, so a surcharge without which the service cannot be used would be part of the price.
• Founder's decision (28 October 2026): rounding up is a donation, enabled by default, which each participant can switch off. The fee for the service remains equal to costs, and the difference from rounding up is voluntary support.
• Founder's decision (30 October 2026): rounding up is a donation we ask about when an account is created; we do not tick the option on anyone's behalf, and the participant can switch it on or off at any time. Reason: express consent to every additional payment (Article 10 of the Consumer Rights Act) and the principle that the choice belongs to the participant. Supersedes the decision of 28 October.
• Intention: each participant can make a small, regular contribution to maintaining the shared infrastructure, but does so by choice, not under compulsion. This version is also closer to the idea of the whole project.
• Status: no change to the statute needed. The rules will be set out in the terms of service; when preparing them, it is worth confirming the accounting treatment of donations with the accounting office.

Z4. Votes (§ 8)#

• Currently: the foundation “allows” votes and consultations, and the statute uses the language of guarantees (“absolute preservation of anonymity”, “guaranteeing anonymity”).
• Direction:
  • describe in which matters and under what conditions the result of a vote binds the board;
  • record the principles agreed on 28 October 2026: a binding vote after joining and verification, several ways of confirming uniqueness, and no use of biometric data;
  • replace the language of guarantees with a description of the protected properties, with a reference to the voting regulations and the technical documentation;
  • distinguish consultations, that is, asking for opinions without verifying participants, from votes, in which we confirm the uniqueness of each voter; record that at the start we allow verification paths with a limited risk of one person casting several votes, and that the goal is one vote for each person.
• Why: the manifesto provides for gradually handing decisions over to the community (§ 5.2, § 6.3, § 7.1), while the statute today only gives the possibility of asking it for its opinion. We cannot justify absolute guarantees, so we should not give them, not even in the statute.
• Status: direction; wording after the first trial votes.

Z5. Handing over responsibility (§ 13(3)–(4) and § 15)#

• Currently: the founder appoints and dismisses the board, the board serves for an indefinite term, and a change to the statute requires the founder's consent.
• Direction: in stages, in line with the plan for handing over responsibility in the manifesto (§ 7.1):
  • terms of office for the board;
  • community participation in choosing the people who manage the foundation;
  • phasing out the founder's special powers.
• Intention: power over the foundation is to pass to the community in a way that protects the continuity of services and private data.
• Status: direction; the first stage and its timing will be set by the plan for handing over responsibility.

Z6. Protecting the basic layer of services (proposal for consideration)#

• Currently: the three conditions for launching further pillars and the priority of Pillar I exist only in the manifesto and the Foundation Principles whitepaper.
• Direction: consider a provision in the statute that funds from service fees serve first to maintain those services and the reserve, and that we fund further directions only after the conditions set out in regulations are met.
• Status: Claude's proposal, for the founder's decision.

Z7. Digital assets after the dissolution of the foundation (§ 16(2); proposal for consideration)#

• Direction: add that code, data and content made available by the foundation under free licenses remain available under those licenses also after its dissolution.
• Status: Claude's proposal, for the founder's decision.

Matters that belong in regulations#

The manifesto describes these principles, but their details do not require a change to the statute. The board will adopt them as public regulations under § 14(2):

• the benefits register and rules for accepting gifts;
• the board's transitional pool: up to 5% of new, free funds from monthly income for the further pillars (manifesto § 6.3);
• participants' balances, their refund and limits;
• rounding up the bill as a donation chosen when creating an account, with no default selection (terms of service);
• rules for verification, recovering access and resolving disputes in votes;
• rules for commissioning work (after change Z2).

Source file: content/en/statut/rejestr-zmian.md · history of changes · propose a change