About
Companies run on intangible assets. Their systems rarely show who owns them.
Brands, software, data, domains and contracts carry most of the value in a modern business — and are the least likely to have a single, current, evidenced record anywhere.
The problem
Ownership is usually implicit.
It is spread across a registrar account, a Git organization, a folder of signed PDFs, an IP agent's portal and the memory of two or three people who were there when the decisions were made. Nothing is wrong with any of those systems. The problem is that no single one of them can answer an ownership question, and the person who can is on holiday.
That is tolerable right up until it is not: a financing, a spin-out, a dispute or an acquisition, when the story has to be rebuilt under deadline from the same scattered material.
The thesis
Make the record maintained, not reconstructed.
Intangible HQ connects brands, software, intellectual property, contracts, licences, repositories, digital accounts and evidence into one continuously maintained ownership graph.
If that record is kept as work happens — a contributor onboarded, a domain registered, an agreement signed — then the diligence exercise is an export rather than a project.
How we build it
Five principles that decide the arguments.
These are the ones that come up repeatedly when deciding what the product should do, so they are written down rather than re-litigated.
- 01
Specialist systems stay specialist
Source control, contract systems, IP filing and registrars are good at their jobs. Replacing them is not the opportunity — connecting them is. Intangible HQ is the control layer above them, and says so on every integration page.
- 02
Evidence beats assertion
Any system can store the sentence “we own this”. The useful question is what supports it, who checked, and what it said before. That is why evidence, verification status and history are part of the model rather than features bolted to the side of it.
- 03
Three truths, kept apart
Legal ownership, operational custody and economic grouping are different facts about the same asset. Conflating them is the most common cause of a diligence surprise, so the product refuses to merge them even when it would simplify a screen.
- 04
The machine proposes, a person decides
Extraction from documents is a good use of a model. Concluding that a clause transferred ownership is not. Material legal facts go through human verification, and the platform records who did it.
- 05
Say what the product does today
Available, beta, planned or concept — each marketed capability is classified before it is published. A site that oversells is discovered during the trial, which is the most expensive moment to lose someone.
Build the ownership record before somebody asks for it.
Register what exists, connect the relationships, attach the evidence. The answer you need under deadline is the one you maintained beforehand.
Evidence-backed relationships Multi-entity by design Built for transfer and diligence