Most creators don’t realize this yet, but your intellectual property can do more than sit on a hard drive or wait for a deal — it can function as collateral, just like real estate or equipment.
On November 26, 2025, I filed and perfected the first IP‑Backed Security Entitlement (IPBSE) under UCC law.
This filing documents the assignment of four unpublished works valued at $2.5M, establishing a new precedent for how creative IP can be structured, valued, and recognized.
What this means for creators:
- Your scripts, music, characters, and worlds can be treated as financial assets
- Unpublished work can carry real valuation
- You can structure your IP in a way lenders and companies understand
- You gain leverage without giving up ownership
This isn’t theory — it’s now a recorded, circulating financial instrument.
For creators who want to understand how their own IP could be structured or valued, I’m happy to share what this means and how it works.
The CollateralVerse grows with every creator who learns to treat their ideas like real assets.
2 people like this
Absolutely, Tom — here’s the simple version.
Most creators think their IP only has value after it sells or gets produced.
What I’ve done is show that your creative work can carry value before that — and can be structured the same way businesses structure their assets.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
1. I assigned four of my unpublished works into a single financial instrument.
These are original scripts and documents that haven’t been released yet.
2. I valued that bundle at $2.5M using a standardized IP‑backed framework.
3. I filed it publicly with the California Secretary of State as a secured financial asset.
That filing is what makes it official — it’s now a recognized, circulating entitlement under UCC law.
4. The result is the first IP‑Backed Security Entitlement (IPBSE).
It’s a new way for creators to treat their ideas like real assets instead of waiting for permission or a deal.
If you (or anyone here) want to understand how your own scripts or worlds could be structured or valued the same way, I’m happy to break it down.
1 person likes this
I have a bridge for sale. More seriously, it is a plausible idea. but they are more like 'Privileges' which can be granted or withheld at someone else's discretion, than 'Entitlements', which put an obligation on others to provide specific benefits and hence could in fact be valued.
Or are they?
I'm batting for - 'Yes, it's true, they can be valued.
4 people like this
David, great question — and you’re actually touching the core distinction that makes this filing meaningful.
In the creative world, IP often feels like a privilege because access, deals, and opportunities depend on someone else’s approval. But under UCC law, intellectual property is treated as an asset the moment it is assigned, described, and valued in a secured structure.
Here’s the key difference:
Privileges depend on permission.
Entitlements depend on structure.
When I created the IP‑Backed Security Entitlement (IPBSE), I wasn’t claiming that someone owes me a benefit. I was documenting that:
- the IP exists
- the rights are owned
- the valuation is defined
- the assignment is executed
- the structure is filed and perfected
Once those elements are in place, the IP becomes a recognized financial asset, not a hypothetical one.
That’s why it can be valued.
That’s why it can be collateralized.
That’s why it can circulate.
The IPBSE doesn’t force anyone to buy, fund, or option the work — it simply moves creative IP out of the “maybe someday” category and into the same legal framework businesses use to structure their assets today.
If you’re curious, I’m happy to break down how the entitlement structure works and why it’s different from the traditional “wait for a deal” model creators are used to.
2 people like this
Do IPBSE's resemble NFT's in any way?
1 person likes this
Richard, great question — and the short answer is: only on the surface, not in substance.
Both IPBSEs and NFTs involve digitally‑described assets, but that’s where the similarity ends.
NFTs are digital collectibles.
IPBSEs are financial instruments.
Here’s the clean breakdown:
NFTs
- Live on a blockchain
- Represent a token or certificate
- Don’t create legal rights by themselves
- Are mostly used for ownership signals or digital art markets
IPBSEs
- Live inside the UCC financial system
- Represent a secured interest in actual intellectual property
- Are backed by legal filings, assignments, and valuation
- Function like collateral, similar to how businesses structure assets
An NFT is a digital marker.
An IPBSE is a legal structure.
One is about proving you own a token.
The other is about turning IP into a recognized, circulating financial asset.
If you want, I can break down the exact mechanics of how an IPBSE is created and why it behaves more like a security entitlement than any kind of crypto asset.
2 people like this
If anyone else here is curious about how their own scripts, music, characters, or worlds could be structured the same way, feel free to jump in. This is a new lane for creators, and the more questions that get asked, the clearer the whole model becomes for everyone.
1 person likes this
The valuation is just an estimate, right? The actual value is determined on sale.
I guess I wonder what’s the reason to do this? What’s the next step? How does it help you profit?
1 person likes this
Great questions, Mike — and yes, the valuation is just an estimate. The real purpose isn’t to ‘price’ the IP, it’s to structure it.
Once your IP is structured as an asset, three things become possible:
- You can prove ownership cleanly
That’s what producers, financiers, and platforms care about.
- You can leverage it upstream
Not to sell it — but to use it in funding, packaging, or building a portfolio.
- You can participate in the value your IP creates
When your rights are clean and your asset is formalized, you’re not just handing over a script — you’re bringing a structured property into the deal.
The next step is simple:
Once the IP is formalized, you can license it, assign it, package it, or use it in negotiations with far more leverage.
It’s not about selling the IP — it’s about making sure you own it in a way the industry recognizes.”
1 person likes this
I understand (I assume, haha) that the CollateralVerse is a euphemism, but is there a sponsoring broker or entity that markets the instrument in a way that does imply (or create) actual value?
1 person likes this
Great question, Darrell — and you’re right, the CollateralVerse isn’t a brokered product. It’s the upstream framework that makes creative IP legible as an asset before it ever reaches a marketplace.
There’s no sponsoring broker because nothing is being sold.
What I’m doing is formalizing the IP — ownership, chain‑of‑title, and asset structure — so that if a creator chooses to license, assign, or finance it downstream, the property is already clean and recognized.
Think of it this way:
- Upstream: structure, documentation, valuation, ownership clarity
- Downstream: agents, brokers, financiers, platforms
The CollateralVerse sits entirely upstream.
It doesn’t market or sell the asset — it prepares it so creators don’t lose leverage when they enter the downstream world where brokers and buyers operate.
Once the IP is structured, creators can take it to any marketplace, manager, financier, or broker they choose — with far more leverage than if they entered unstructured.
4 people like this
Keep us posted on how this progresses. As both an "IP" holder and a producer, I see no difference in this between copyrighting your work (your IP) and going through the chain of title process when selling it. The estimated value may be your best guess on similar properties, but I don't see any buyer in the industry taking that at face value, you could even be short-changing yourself. This is why contracts are negotiated and no two sales are the same. What makes IP attractive to buyers is the audience (or potential audience) it comes with, not the material itself, and there simply is no way to predict that -- even with star power and a best selling novel as the basis for IP, any number of things can occur that derail the return on investment.
1 person likes this
BARON - Great response to my points.
1 person likes this
Absolutely, Laurie — and you’re right about everything you’re describing.
Copyright and chain‑of‑title are essential, and downstream buyers will always negotiate based on audience, traction, and market conditions.**
Where this filing sits is actually before all of that.
It’s not trying to predict market value or replace negotiation — it’s simply formalizing the IP as a structured asset so creators don’t enter those negotiations empty‑handed.
Most creators only have:
- a script
- a concept
- a draft
- a loose copyright
But they don’t have a documented asset with:
- ownership clarity
- contribution history
- valuation context
- supporting materials
- a clean upstream record
That’s the gap this solves.
It doesn’t tell a buyer what the IP is “worth.”
It prepares the creator so that when they enter the chain‑of‑title and negotiation process, they’re doing it with a structured property instead of a loose collection of files.
Downstream value is always determined by the market — you’re absolutely right.
This just ensures the creator’s side of the table is clean, documented, and ready before they ever get there.
2 people like this
I've gone through chain of title with many projects, it's typically not that complicated. The only time it becomes complicated is when there is more than one writer. In that instance I can see this "packet" being useful, (valuation aside), however the buyer is still going to go through their typical due diligence process.
1 person likes this
Great question — and this is actually where the misunderstanding usually happens.
The valuation in this filing isn’t trying to predict what a buyer will pay.
It’s not a market valuation, and it’s not meant to replace due diligence.”**
The metrics I’m using are strictly upstream metrics:
- scope of work completed (drafts, rewrites, treatments, bible, pitch deck, etc.)
- creative labor inputs (hours, stages, contributions)
- developmental maturity (concept → outline → draft → revisions → supporting materials)
- documentation completeness (ownership clarity, contribution history, chain‑of‑title hygiene)
- comparative context, not comparative pricing (similar properties only as reference points, not predictions)
These metrics don’t tell a buyer what the IP is “worth.”
They tell the creator what they’ve actually built.
Downstream buyers will always:
- run comps
- assess audience potential
- evaluate risk
- negotiate based on their own models
Laurie is absolutely right about that.
This filing sits before all of that — it’s simply giving the creator a structured, documented asset instead of a loose collection of files.
It’s not trying to shortcut the buyer’s process.
It’s preparing the creator for it.
1 person likes this
I have a patent for an alternative design for landfill sites and remember going through the Patent Process as a strange but interesting lengthy experience. Just saying.
1 person likes this
That makes total sense, David — patents force you to think structurally long before anything is ‘ready.’
A lot of creators never get exposed to that kind of process, which is why upstream clarity becomes so important later.
Appreciate you sharing that.