Coral Reefs
Bridging existing AI initiatives with a sustainable vision to combat techno-feudalism.
Eric Raymond’s famous 1997 essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, uses two metaphors to describe two different approaches to building software. On one side, we have the cathedral-style approach: closed, top-down with carefully controlled releases—a bit like an imposing structure overseen and meticulously controlled by a small group of master builders and experts. On the other side, we have the bazaar-style approach: open freewheeling hub of diverse contributors tinkering in full view of the public—a community-driven, bustling marketplace where anyone can set up shop.
These analogies have defined how many of us think about open-source and proprietary software. But now, in the age of LLMs and advanced AI tools, our challenges and stakes are higher. It’s no longer about code quality, it’s about how AI decisions affect public trust, data privacy, creative industries, and even democracy. So how do we reconcile both philosophies in a world where each approach now carries real stakes?
We introduce the Coral Reef framework to combine the best of both worlds that we hope to give us a roadmap for responsible, flexible, and scalable AI development.
Cathedral vs. Bazaar in AI Today
Cathedral-style AI is exemplified by organizations like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc. which brings significant resources, top-tier researchers, carefully vetted datasets, and heavy-duty safety measures. These players churn out groundbreaking models, but they’re often cautious about releasing raw model weights or fully exposing their training pipelines; thus, they are typically released through limited APIs or proprietary channels. After all, brand reputation, security, and commercialization are at stake.
Bazaar-style AI thrives on openness, collaboration, and rapid iteration, embodied by open-source communities and projects on Hugging Face or GitHub. Anyone can contribute code, run experiments, or propose improvements. That’s how you get a wide range of specialized models that quickly adapt to niche use-cases. The catch? Large-scale resources aren’t always at their disposal, and projects can fragment or struggle with consistent governance.
Both approaches work—but neither alone seems entirely fit for the complexities of modern AI. As advanced generative models start affecting everything from health diagnostics to creative arts, we need a more nuanced, balanced framework
The Coral Reef
Picture a reef in the ocean:
A rigid foundation of coral skeletons forms the structure that grows slowly over time—akin to a carefully architected AI model (or set of models) or infrastructure built with strong safety guardrails. In other words, some level of central oversight and stability exists representing a cathedral.
A diverse ecosystem of organisms (fish, algae, etc.) thrives on top, symbolizing the open-source communities, startups, and independent contributors who use, customize, and extend this core. They’re free to explore and innovate—like the bazaar—without needing to reinvent the foundational skeleton every single time.
The reef can self-regulate to a point, but still needs external protection (e.g., from pollution or climate change). AI systems can’t rely solely on organic community-driven fixes from major external forces such as legislation, malicious misuses, or data breaches that wreak havoc. This necessitates systemic protections and crisis response plans ranging from robust governance, regulatory guardrails, and collaborative oversight.
This hybrid model imagines a future where massive corporate labs and open-source communities don’t just coexist but actively reinforce each other. The “core” is maintained with high standards of safety and quality, while the larger ecosystem experiments, iterates, and innovates quickly.
But Don’t We Already See This in Action?
If you check out projects on Hugging Face or Azure AI, you’ll see many open-source or partially open AI models from walled-garden players like Microsoft, Meta, NVIDIA, and others. Indeed, some aspects of the Coral Reef approach already exist. Yet these efforts are often fragmented or ad hoc: a company open-sources some model weights or code of their choosing (typically previous versions), and the community runs with it.
The Coral Reef framework doesn’t dismiss these releases; it builds on them. Rather than releasing code in isolation, the reef approach calls for a holistic ecosystem, including governance protocols, sustainable maintenance, incentivized collaboration, and safety nets for crises. In other words, these scattered “reef fragments” could become a unified biosphere if they were systematically knitted together.
The DeepSeek vs. OpenAI Controversy: A Wake-Up Call
A recent (and highly charged) example from the bazaar vs. cathedrals highlights why a more coordinated and transparent approach is so crucial. DeepSeek recently shocked the industry by releasing R1, which reportedly match or exceed the performance of leading models from OpenAI and Meta at a fraction of the cost. This efficiency has raised questions about the necessity of massive computational investments typically seen in AI development. DeepSeek's open-source approach further threatens monolithic dominance, democratizing access to high-performance models, challenging the traditional businesses of proprietary AI tech. There has been a significant response from OpenAI, especially concerning allegations that DeepSeek might have used OpenAI's models and data through techniques such as "distillation" for training their own.
Ownership of Output
What triggered heated debate isn’t just the question of who used whose data or models. It’s the implication that OpenAI might claim ownership over the outputs of its AI models. If nearly all text, images, and software code in the future could be generated or touched by AI, are we looking at a world where a handful of AI giants can retroactively assert property rights over everything their models produce?
This is no minor detail. If we aren’t careful, we could slip into a “techno-feudalism” reality:
Innovation and Creativity Stall: Small businesses and indie developers avoid building on AI outputs for fear of tangled IP claims.
Control Over Progress: AI giants gate-keep who gets to innovate (and how), since they’d hold the power to revoke usage or restrict licensing.
Invisible Strings Everywhere: Emails, software, videos, images—anything touched by AI might carry “invisible” terms of service or licensing constraints.
Without clear rules, AI risks becoming a corporate land grab rather than an open frontier for innovation. The alternative is a future where every AI-generated artifact might be subject to corporate claims, potentially crushing open collaboration and stifling the free exchange of knowledge.
The Coral Reef Approach: Defining What’s Missing
So, how does the reef metaphor address these looming challenges? Here’s what still needs to happen to turn disjointed open-source releases and proprietary systems into a cohesive, resilient ecosystem:
1. Systematic Governance & Sustainability
Ecosystem Maintenance: Rather than ad hoc code drops, coral reef governance ensures that each model or dataset has a clear roadmap, regular check-ins, and an active community of maintainers.
Ownership Clarity: A reef approach necessitates upfront agreements about who owns (or co-owns) the core model and the spin-offs—and how outputs are licensed or regulated.
2. Incentivized Collaboration
Bridging Cathedral & Bazaar: Create financial, reputation, or strategic incentives for monolithic players to share some aspects of their tech—and for open-source communities to adopt certain safety or licensing practices.
Balanced Access: Provide “safe-to-open” model components, plus well-documented APIs and extension points for the community—without ceding all IP or brand control.
3. Clear IP & Licensing Frameworks
Open-Source Norms, Evolved: Traditional open-source licenses (e.g., Apache 2.0, MIT, etc.) weren’t designed for generative AI outputs. We need updated frameworks that define how you can use, transform, and redistribute AI-generated content.
Transparent Policies: Outline exactly what is—and isn’t—allowed regarding training data, model outputs, and commercial derivatives.
4. Crisis Response Mechanisms
Rapid-Response Teams: If a major IP conflict or safety flaw arises, an established cross-organizational “reef rescue” team should coordinate promptly, share data responsibly, and issue patches or clarifications.
Shared Post-Mortems: Publicly discuss incidents (like the DeepSeek dispute) to refine the ecosystem’s practices, much like reef conservationists share findings after coral bleaching events.
5. Emphasis on Ethics & Community Engagement
Community Watchdogs: In a robust reef, the fish help keep the coral healthy. In AI, engaged contributors, ethicists, and civil society groups can crowdsource accountability—spotting misuse or biased outputs early.
Educational On-Ramps: Provide accessible tools and tutorials so a broader base of developers can adapt and improve models responsibly. More “species” in the reef means more resilience.
The Reef’s Crypto Layer
Crypto enables a Coral Reef–style AI ecosystem by providing sustainable funding, fair value distribution, and autonomous governance—free from traditional gatekeepers. Its composability fosters network effects, where each contribution strengthens the whole, allowing seamless innovation. The challenge of aligning incentives across diverse participants—from corporate AI labs to solo developers—is addressed through shared economic incentives and transparent governance, balancing control and collaboration.
Most critically, crypto’s permissionless innovation and programmable incentives ensure a self-sustaining ecosystem, where corporate labs and open-source communities reinforce each other. Blockchain’s immutability guarantees clear attribution and licensing, preventing "techno-feudalism" while maintaining quality and safety. Smart contracts automate governance and value distribution, ensuring all stakeholders have a voice in AI’s evolution.
Responding to Skeptics: Cathedral and Bazaar Alike
“This Already Exists. Why Reinvent the Wheel?”
Yes, partial or smaller-scale reef-like setups do exist: some companies have open-sourced older models, and many open-source projects maintain partial governance structures. And yes, a few DAO experiments are cropping up. But these efforts remain scattered. The Coral Reef model calls for deep integration, consistent protocols, and a collective vision (possibly via crypto-based governance) that ensures long-term viability and mitigates IP friction—particularly important given controversies like DeepSeek vs. OpenAI.
“We Can’t Just Give Away Trade Secrets!”
The reef approach doesn’t force total transparency. It supports tiered openness: cathedrals can keep their “crown jewels” locked down while still releasing subsets of data, older model versions, or specialized APIs that encourage external collaboration and iterative improvements. Decentralized finance (DeFi) principles can even help cathedral-style organizations monetize open portions in controlled ways, turning partial openness into a revenue stream rather than a threat.
“Governance Will Slow Us Down!”
In practice, minimal governance can accelerate innovation by preventing fragmentation and unproductive forks. Moreover, crypto’s fast, automated governance can remove bottlenecks and make coordination more agile. Well-defined rules (encoded in smart contracts) about licensing and ownership can ward off legal or ethical nightmares—allowing developers to work confidently.
Final Thoughts: Avoiding the “Techno-Feudal” Future
The DeepSeek vs. OpenAI standoff underscores the chilling possibility of an AI-powered future where every output might come with “invisible strings.” If we let a handful of tech giants claim retroactive ownership of everything their models produce, we may stifle innovation and wind up with “techno-feudalism on steroids.”
The Coral Reef framework offers a constructive path: one that acknowledges the reality of proprietary powerhouses, embraces the creativity of open communities, and weaves governance, incentives, and IP clarity into the ecosystem from the start. Crypto infrastructure leveraging crypto’s unique properties and mechanisms can supercharge this approach, unlocking entirely new ways to incentivize good behavior, distribute resources fairly, optimize coordination, and maintain transparency.
By doing so, we can sidestep a future of endless IP disputes and chilling effects, moving instead toward a robust, transparent, and fair AI environment—where big players and small innovators alike can thrive without fear of hidden claims or locked-down knowledge. More importantly, we maintain the spirit of knowledge as a communal resource, rather than a gated property of a few AI overlords.
Disclosure: Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this post are solely those of the author(s) in their individual capacity and are not the views of Reforge Fund I. or its affiliates (together with its affiliates, "Reforge"). Certain information contained herein may have been obtained from third-party sources. Reforge believes that the information provided is reliable and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This post may contain links to third-party websites ("External Websites"). The existence of any such link does not constitute an endorsement of such websites, the content of the websites, or the operators of the websites. These links are provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by us of the content on such External Websites. The content of such External Websites is developed and provided by others and Reforge takes no responsibility for any content therein. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in this blog are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others.
The content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as the basis for an investment decision, and is not, and should not be assumed to be, complete. The contents herein are not to be construed as legal, business, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisors for those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. There can be no guarantee that any mentioned objectives will be achieved, and the results may vary substantially from year to year or even from month to month. Investments or products referenced in this blog may not be suitable for you or any other party.
Reforge has established, maintains and enforces written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and effectively manage conflicts of interest related to its activities.
 | A guest post by
|