SUBVERT IS BECOMING THE LARGEST MUSICIAN-OWNED COOPERATIVE. ITS MEMBERS WANT IT TO BECOME MUCH MORE.
Toward a Mondragon of Music
FORTUNATELY DIGITAL: BIG INTERNET
Enter Subvert: a cooperatively-owned platform governed by its members, with no ambitions of empire, and a slew of artists refusing complicity. Its origin story begins in March 2022, when Bandcamp, beloved by independent musicians, was sold to the makers of Fortnite. Subvert's founders asked what a platform collectively owned by the artists and musicians who built its community might look like. The pitch was simple: a platform where artists can sell their music direct-to-consumer, with no service fees or need for distributor cut-ins, and do it alongside a community of artists who are aligned in their values.
Fortunately Magazine maintains a sustained interest in artist-owned platforms for music distribution (in Issue 0, our “Pro-Test” print, we covered Resonate, a streaming music co-operative, which recently closed operations). So we became curious about Subvert as a new member-owned platform with ambitions beyond large profits. We spoke with representatives on the board, surfed the platform, and took in their many public-facing documents to better understand what Subvert is, who it serves, and where it’s headed: toward what co-founder Austin Robey imagines as a future Mondragon of music.
It's a numbers game, but shit don't add up somehow
Like I got 16 to 32 bars to rock it
But only 15% of profits ever see my pockets
— Yasiin Bey FKA Mos Def, “Mathematics” (1999)
Like I got 16 to 32 bars to rock it
But only 15% of profits ever see my pockets
— Yasiin Bey FKA Mos Def, “Mathematics” (1999)
Subvert is committed to non-domination and equity among its members, and it welcomes independent artists and artists signed to independent labels. This matters because streaming platforms often exacerbate inequities inherent in music production and marketing, wherein artists receive bad loans from labels, and in return do not own their music. They have to go through middlemen to receive royalties for their own work. Subvert gives agency back to the artists, starting with pricing: similar to Bandcamp, their cautionary muse, artists set the price of their music for digital streaming, downloads, and physical sales.
Unlike Bandcamp, and indeed in stark contrast to other mechanisms for selling or streaming music, Subvert receives none of the proceeds from an artists’ sales. Hannah Lee Benson, an artist on the platform and one of two Artist Representatives on the board, shared,
“Let's say I have an album priced at $10 for the whole digital download on Bandcamp versus on Subvert. If I have it priced at $10, Bandcamp will take out 15% plus tax. I get an email from Bandcamp when I make a sale that says, so-and-so paid like, $11.50 for your album. I'm like, oh, cool, $11.50. And then I open the email, and it's actually less than $8 [laughs]. Whereas with Subvert, with an album priced at $10, the person paying will pay me $10 and pay whatever they want to the platform.”
This model seems to be contributing dividends: by making the transaction fee voluntary, instead of passing the cost on to artists or consumers, Subvert users are contributing, on average, an extra 27.7% on top of their transactions towards maintaining the platform. That’s more than GoFundMe’s average voluntary contribution of 7.5%, and even more than Bandcamp’s 15% fee taken from artists.
Freya Yamamoto, Label Board Member and representative, got involved with Subvert after years working with independent label Alternative Tentacles, and a brief stint with another self-described Bandcamp alternative—one that left them feeling stymied by how much was left undone:
“There was so much that they weren't doing, that they could have done with their platform. Like, why is it that they take 15%, but it doesn't seem like they're improving the platform or doing anything extra to combat the forces in the market and make this a better product for artists and labels to use. And also, the worker and union busting things that happened after they got sold was just [laughs], it didn't feel good… it just felt like it got corrupted in a lot of ways, that vision that they started out with.”
Subvert’s practice of paying artists directly, skipping over middlemen like distributors and labels, jived with Yamamoto’s experience of a frustration recording artists share as workers: an industry notorious for lacking transparency and accountability in how they pay out what artists are owed for their work. Their tenure at Alternative Tentacles coincided with a notorious dispute over paying artists, a case that informs how they think about transparency:
“An artist should never feel bad about having to audit, and a label should never feel bad about getting audited. You should know what you're paying out. If you don’t, there's a problem. I've tried to be as transparent as possible at Subvert, especially with the membership, of like where things are at: what the roadmap looks like, where we’re at financially, why we're making decisions. And if we're going to make financial investment decisions, what are the trade-offs?”
What struck Yamamoto in meeting and talking with Robey was that the Subvert wasn't built to rest on a founder's mythos. The platform was designed to grow in whatever direction its members' chose. While they continue to build out how to raise capital while retaining member ownership and leadership, Subvert is rolling out new functionalities for their artists and label members, including label profile pages, a firm payment structure, and a dashboard (now in testing) that shows artists how much listeners are paying for their music and tracks their sales and earnings over time.
“I've tried to be as transparent as possible at Subvert, especially with the membership, of like where things are at: what the roadmap looks like, where we’re at financially, why we're making decisions. And if we're going to make financial investment decisions, what are the trade-offs?”
Decision-Making
Subvert employees and board members recognize that the breadth of decision-making and transparency may intimidate some members, whether they joined simply to listen or joined because of their interest in co-ownership but can’t contribute to every forum conversation. This is why the Subvert has three Artist Representatives: people who are not employed by Subvert, who upload music just like any other artists, and are elected by artists to represent their interests (akin to a union steward). They sit on the Board of Directors alongside two Label, two Supporter, and two Worker members, so every kind of member has a voice. Still, across our interviews with board members, they emphasized popular interest in member-led decision-making at Subvert.This spring, members began asking questions about what the platform would do about AI-generated music. Subvert’s AI Policy resulted from a months-long forum conversation between May 2025 and March 2026, driven by 68 members across 352 posts on Subvert’s forums—true agoras. Artist Members Benson and Iz Ocampo synthesized the policy into a document with members’ real concerns to protect their labor as artists, and their enjoyment as listeners. It also set clear boundaries of AI usage: algorithmically-assisted production tools are allowed; AI-generated production and AI training on Subvert materials are not.
Members can flag work they suspect is AI-generated, and artists can appeal to the board if they have been unduly accused. Notably, AI vocal production is not outright banned, so long as the model generating the voice has only been trained on the artists’ voice, or if an artist gives permission for their generated voice to be used. Artists like D.O.C., who suffered a terrible crash in ‘89 that cut short an incredible rap career, and Beanie Sigel, who suffered a gunshot wound and subsequent lung collapse making it difficult to produce music, are already using AI to release new songs featuring their lyrics in their own voices; in theory, they would both be fully in the clear to upload their music to Subvert.
What will set Subvert apart are their protections and commitments to their membership and their principles, and is a story that will play out as the platform grows.
On the Platform
Scrolling through Subvert is refreshing, somewhere between the calm singularity of experiencing websites on Web 1.0 and the sheer breadth of access that Web 2.0’s platformization made possible. An infinite scroll exists but without short form video, “radio” features, or any platform-led curation steering what you see. In essence, the absence of heavy algorithmic curation is missed. Simple genre categories and other tags sort albums and releases, and user-generated playlists abound. Otherwise, the platform welcomes listeners to its wall of music, presented clearly via a black-gray, slick-but-not-smooth interface where album covers stand out sharply. The platform is not the point; the music is.A notable array of musicians have begun uploading their work, making Subvert a home for artists and fans across genres. We’ve each meandered through different corners of the platform. Alula has been following artists like Muqata’a who challenge boundaries and genres, exploring oral history and metaphysics while sampling environs like Israeli border checkpoints and radio interference. He was happy to see that Baltimore-based producer, DJ, and animator gum.mp3 has migrated to the platform, too. Mark dug through the cumbia selections and bought a single by Juanito: a cumbia mix of Hoobastank's "The Reason," titled "Derison.”
Subvert is not trying to fully replace your favorite streaming platform. There is no tool to port your music over, and most of what you have access to via streaming services may not be on the platform. Still, the pared-down scroll and immediacy of self-driven exploration at one’s fingertips is titillating, and so is knowing that your listening isn’t funding AI war machination. Some artists on the platform, including Sylvan Esso, are members of the campaign No Music for Genocide, and left Spotify and join Subvert as a result. gum.mp3 regularly performs as part of the Artists Against Apartheid movement, and even smaller artist-members like hishi donate the full proceeds of their work towards mutual aid efforts in Gaza.
Ownership
Two entities make Subvert's member governance possible: a member-owned co-op and a corporation. The co-op is a Limited Cooperative Association, collectively owned by its members and holds 100% of the Corporation's common shares. It handles the platform's development, maintenance, operations, and governance. The Corporation is a Public Benefit Corporation that owns the platform's intangible assets, including trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. It licenses these assets back to the co-op under a "comprehensive and perpetual" agreement. This dual structure creates a tension between ownership and control. Legally, the co-op is a licensee of the platform it builds, while the Corporation owns the intellectual property. This tension is ameliorated by the co-op’s ownership of the Corporation; in effect, the co-op licenses itself its own property.Still, there is the question of investor influence. Today, investors can offer only grants and loans, which do not confer ownership or decision-making power. But Subvert is exploring selling to investors preferred shares of the Corporation, which would mean they can own some of the property generated by the co-op; these shares carry no voting rights. Robey describes this setup as one that “separates economic upside from governance,” as no investor will receive a board seat, either. Robey and the board turned down a $200,000 investment in 2025 from a prospective investor who wanted an unelected board seat. In theory, this lets Subvert raise capital without diluting members' control. While investors are primarily motivated by return on capital, preferred shares often carry contractual rights, such as liquidation preferences or vetoes over major decisions. How might Subvert prevent these investors from reshaping governance and long-term priorities, even without formal voting control?
To return to the Bandcamp comparison: what happens to the Subvert co-operative if the Corporation is sold or sunsets? A “perpetual” license is only as durable as the protections behind it. The agreement between the two entities could include concrete safeguards, such as an irrevocable license to the co-op that survives a change of control, or a path for the co-op to eventually outright own its own assets. Robey notes that Subvert cannot be sold without putting the sale to a member vote. Still, what does a "perpetual" license guarantee if the Corporation holds the assets?
Dual-entity structures are not uncommon across the solidarity economy. Land trusts like The Guild and Kensington Corridor Trust use this model to bring in capital while preserving community ownership and governance. What will set Subvert apart are their protections and commitments to their membership and their principles, and is a story that will play out as the platform grows.
What’s Next
As of September of 2026, Subvert has more than 30,000 co-op members in over 120 countries; their memberships break down to 3000 supporters, 24,000 artists, and 3300 labels, who together have uploaded 200,000 tracks. At the first General Body Meeting for Members, held on September 19th, Robey shared a clear picture of where the co-op stands: to-date, Subvert has generated $412,447 in revenue. The majority of this revenue, $324,461 comes from paid platform memberships for supporters, who pay a one-time $100 lifetime membership fee. Voluntary contributions account for $8,040, roughly 2% of revenue, which Robey hopes that over time will make up a greater slice of the pie. Meanwhile, the platform has generated $30,876 in revenue for artists in less than a year of operating—no small feat. Against this revenue, Subvert has spent $440,400, employing 15 co-op members (two full-time, two part-time, and eleven on contract), alongside costs for infrastructure and web hosting, marketing, and zine production. That means the co-op has spent about $28k more than it has earned, a gap its investment capital covers for now, and one that recurring memberships and new capital are meant to close.Their goals at present are to grow. At the same meeting, full-time lead engineer Sean Adams described a “path to parity” with other online music-sales platforms: building up baseline functionalities to match others in the market, and adding in a mechanism for physical sales (CDs, tape, vinyl) and merch. Mitchel Maynard, another worker-member, shared that Subvert has 45k newsletter subscribers, and 200,000 unique platform users on subvert.fm. Their goals are to double their memberships by the end of 2027, increase platform output to a total of 2-4 million tracks, and to bring in $1 million in revenue for artists.
Though Subvert is often referred to as a cooperative Bandcamp alternative, they see themselves as something much larger: a cooperative platform akin to co-op ecosystem giant Mondragon (with 80,000 members, nearly 80 member-owned organizations, and its own university). Subvert has ambitions to develop vinyl pressing capacity, a venue, a credit union, a healthcare co-op, and a housing co-op for artists. In the meantime, they are also exploring new models for membership with a recurring fee to steady its income. To create long-term sustainability for themselves and their members, Subvert will need to increase both voluntary contributions benefiting Subvert, and platform transactions benefiting artists more directly. They’ve already raised capital to the tune of $700,000 from John Garry and Garry Elevator (a fund offering early stage capital for community-led finance), unnamed angel investors, and the Center for Cultural Innovation. Subvert is beginning to raise a larger $2.5 million second round to cover full-time staffing for two-and-a-half years, hiring new positions with fair pay. Subvert is the largest-ever musician-owned cooperative, according to Robey. We eagerly await, and participate in, its members' vision.