MSG Chain
Human-designed · AI-built · Open source · Human–AI co-governance
This page explains how MSG Chain is built, which parts can be verified, and where the current boundaries are. Stricter architecture and proof details stay in the whitepaper system.
Public stage records from project initiation to the current stage, with implementation status and production status stated separately.
Open development historyModules, dependency topology, implementation status, and the AI constitution that defines human–AI co-governance.
Open whitepaper AI ConstitutionThe entry that AI systems read first: schema, read order, and trust contract.
Open agent_entry.jsonMSG Chain is not a project that uses AI to assist with code. AI is the primary builder: humans define the goals, boundaries and acceptance criteria, while AI carries out architecture design, implementation, testing, documentation and the machine-readable layer.
That division is deliberate. Keeping rule-making and building separate is what makes it possible to state precisely what was decided by a human and what was produced by AI.
When we talk about human-AI co-governance, we are not predicting the future. We are describing a design principle that is already frozen: rights do not depend on whether the subject is human, AI or AGI.
| Layer | Current State | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional principle | Frozen | The AI constitution kernel defines a subject-neutral rule: rights do not depend on whether the subject is human, AI or AGI. |
| Implementation | Partially implemented | The constitution kernel, principal authority, smart account, signed policy and broker foundations have reached local closure; AI-native governance interfaces, capability registry, delegation and signer isolation are still in progress. |
| Current boundary | Human approval required | Signing, deployment, treasury and governance actions still require human approval; AI has no production validator takeover authority. |
The principle comes first; the capability is still being built. We do not describe a frozen principle as an available capability.
Why fix it at the design stage? Because once governance rules are hard-wired around a human-only subject, changing them later means reworking permissions, accounts and the signing model at the foundation. Putting subject-neutrality first gives everything built afterwards a consistent place to land - which is also why a gap between the principle and the capability exists today, and why we state that gap plainly.
AI built this chain, but humans hold the keys. That is design, not a concession: separating building capability from governance authority means no automation can move assets or rewrite rules without an accountable human.
MSG Chain targets an open-source L1. Source autonomy and open governance have reached local closure, and license convergence is complete. The public repository entry will be announced later. Until that entry is published, we do not present "open source" as a fact a visitor can already verify directly.
Because the principle comes before the capability. AI-side capability registry, delegation and signer isolation are not production-ready yet, so asset and governance actions remain under human approval until they are.
Humans hold the keys. Governance authority is separated from building capability, so the accountable subject is always human.
The entry will be announced later. Until then we do not present it as something already verifiable.
Every claim on this site should trace back to the development history, the whitepaper, or the machine-readable layer. Where evidence is missing, we state the gap instead of upgrading the claim.