Provenance Compliance SaaS

Materiel DB

Your Art Collection, Protected Forever

The Challenge

Art provenance is one of the most complex problems in the commercial gallery world — and the tools haven't kept up.

Chapter 1 — The Problem

Why Provenance Is Broken

Decades of History

Galleries manage ownership chains, authentication records, and exhibition history spanning generations.

Legacy Tools Fail

Spreadsheets can't verify evidence. Traditional databases weren't designed for multi-decade reliability.

Trust Is Everything

Your reputation depends on unbreakable provenance chains and ironclad data security.

Chapter 2 — The Solution

A Database Built Like a Vault

Enterprise-grade architecture designed specifically for art world compliance and provenance tracking. Production-ready from day one.

Four Pillars of Protection

Decades-Scale Storage

Partitioned architecture ensures your 2050 data has a home today.

Multi-Tenant Security

Database-enforced isolation means your data stays yours — always.

Evidence Verification

Cryptographic hashing links proof to every provenance claim.

AI-Powered Insights

Automated extraction and smart linking reduce manual effort dramatically.

Chapter 3 — Fortress Security

Fortress-Grade Security

Enterprise SaaS security architecture that isolates every gallery at the database level — not the application layer.

Row-Level Security

Each gallery sees only their own artworks. Database-enforced isolation prevents any cross-tenant data leakage — no exceptions.

Unlike competitors who rely on application-layer filtering, our security is structural. Every query is automatically scoped to your tenant at the connection level.

Security Architecture in Depth

1

Composite Foreign Keys

All relationships include tenant ID, making cross-tenant references structurally impossible.

2

Session Context

Authentication sets tenant context at connection. Every query automatically filters to your gallery.

3

Database-Level Isolation

Security lives in PostgreSQL policies — not in application code that can be bypassed.

Chapter 4 — Built for Decades

Built for Decades

Art collections span generations. Your database should too.

Time-Series Architecture

Quarterly Partitioning

Audit tables automatically partition by quarter. Old data stays accessible, new data stays fast.

Composite Keys

Primary keys include partition columns. Queries hit only relevant quarters, not decades of history.

Auto-Maintenance

Future partitions create automatically. Your 2050 data already has a home.

Longevity by the Numbers

100+

Years of Capacity

Designed for true multi-generational storage

90%+

Query Optimization

Partition pruning eliminates irrelevant data scans

Zero

Data Loss Risk

Cryptographic hashing and immutable audit trails

Chapter 5 — Evidence-Based Truth

Evidence-Based Truth

Every provenance claim needs proof. We track both the claim and the evidence — down to the page and paragraph.

How Evidence Works

Digital Assets

PDFs, images, and certificates stored with content hashing. Verify file integrity at any point in time — forever.


Text Extraction

OCR and text hashing link specific document passages to provenance events. Span-level citations, not generic attachments.


Evidence Links

Polymorphic relationships connect evidence to artworks, transactions, exhibitions, and condition reports.

Chapter 6 — AI Intelligence

AI Intelligence

Let AI handle the tedious. You handle the art.

AI-Powered Workflow

Automatic Extraction

AI reads invoices, certificates, and correspondence to extract provenance events automatically.

Smart Linking

AI suggests relationships between documents, artworks, and constituents based on content similarity.

Confidence Scoring

Every AI extraction includes certainty levels. Review what needs review, trust what's solid.

Natural Language Queries

Query your collection in plain English. No SQL required.

Gap Detection

System flags missing dates, conflicting claims, and incomplete chains automatically.

Human Review

Every AI extraction goes to a review queue. You approve, reject, or edit before it's final.

Powered by Claude 4.5 Sonnet with structured output

Simple Power

Technical excellence you never think about. Gallery operations that just work.

PostgreSQL

Battle-tested reliability

Firebase

Real-time sync

GraphQL

Natural language queries

Chapter 7 — Competitive Positioning

Competitive Positioning

Why our architectural moat is defensible — and why incumbents cannot easily replicate our evidence-first model.

The Architectural Moat

1

Schema Lock-In

Incumbent databases model provenance as text fields — not graphs with claims and evidence.

2

Breaking Changes

Adding an evidence layer requires schema rewrites that break thousands of existing integrations.

3

Product DNA Mismatch

They optimize for cataloging speed. We optimize for forensic defensibility.

4

AI Governance Gap

No framework for human-in-the-loop extraction or assertion lineage.

5

Multi-Tenancy Naivety

They use app-layer filtering. We use database-level isolation.

→ Competitive Window: 18–36 Months

The Schema Problem

Fundamental architectural divergence makes replication a 3-year project.

Incumbent Architecture

Artlogic, TMS

  • Provenance stored as a free text field
  • Evidence attached to artwork — not to specific claims
  • No structured ownership events, dates, or certainty levels

MaterielDB Architecture

Hardware Gallery

  • ProvenanceChain → ProvenanceEvent with certainty and supersession
  • EvidenceLink attaches to specific events with page/span citations
  • Multi-chain support for conflicting accounts

Competitor #1: Artlogic

Leading Gallery CRM — 3,000 customers • $299–499/month • Strong in presentation and inventory

Why They Can't Pivot

  • 15-year technical debt — flat schema can't support a graph model without a full rewrite
  • Customer expectation trap — users expect simple, fast data entry
  • Small team (~30–40 employees) focused on feature parity, not R&D
  • Migration cost: $15–45M to move 3K customers

Our Advantage

  • Target compliance-driven galleries with high-value, export-heavy inventory
  • Migration tool ingests their CSV export seamlessly
  • "Artlogic stores provenance. We PROVE provenance."

Expected response: "Evidence Manager" add-on (generic tagging) by Month 12–24

Competitor #2: Gallery Systems (TMS)

Museum standard — MoMA, Getty, Met • $50–150K setup + $15–30K/year

Why They Can't Pivot

  • Wrong segment: Built for institutions with registrars, not commercial galleries
  • Wrong price: $50–150K setup = 10–50× our cost
  • Wrong speed: 12-month deployment vs. our 60 days
  • Legacy architecture: Linear provenance, SOAP APIs, on-prem bias

Our Advantage

  • 1/50th the price
  • 6× faster to value
  • Solves compliance museums don't face (AML, rapid export certification)
  • AI auto-extracts provenance vs. manual registrar entry

If they launch "TMS Lite": Captures top 5% (major dealers). We capture 80% mid-market.

The "Bolt-On" Trap

Why half-measures fail. Artlogic's most likely response — a generic "Evidence Tagging" feature — cannot compete.

Why Bolt-Ons Break Down

No Claim-Level Linking

Evidence attached to artwork, not to a specific ownership period.

No Multi-Chain Support

Can't model "seller says X, catalogue says Y" — forced to pick one.

No Supersession

Overwrites provenance when correcting errors. History lost.

No AI Governance

No extraction pipeline, review queue, or assertion lineage.

No Span-Level Citations

Can't cite "page 3, paragraph 2" as proof of a specific claim.

User Experience Delta

Three real-world scenarios illustrate why tagging isn't our product.

The Core Insight

Claim-level citations require the graph model — a 3-year rewrite for any incumbent. Tagging is a feature. Our provenance graph is infrastructure.

Chapter 8 — Switching Costs

Switching Cost Asymmetry

Migration friction creates natural lock-in — but only in one direction.

Migration: Easy In, Hard Out

FROM Incumbents → Us

Low Friction

  • Export CSV/XML from Artlogic/TMS
  • AI extracts structured provenance from text
  • Review queue for human approval
  • Timeline: 30–60 days
  • Cost: $0–5K (we absorb in pilot)

FROM Us → Incumbents

High Friction

  • Flatten events → text narrative (LOSSY)
  • Evidence links → generic attachments (lose claim context)
  • Multi-chain provenance → pick one, discard alternates
  • Supersession history → LOST ENTIRELY
  • Cost: $5–10K + audit re-validation risk

Our lock-in: Evidence vault + daily workflow + compliance dependency + network effects

Chapter 9 — Timing Window

Timing Window: 18–36 Months

Why the next 18 months are critical for category ownership.

Three Converging Forces

Regulatory Momentum

  • EU AMLD6 expands to art market (2024–25)
  • UK Economic Crime Bill in effect (2024)
  • US Treasury AML regs under consideration

Market Readiness

  • COVID forced gallery digitization (2020–23)
  • New generation expects software-first workflows
  • Replacement cycle: Excel → SaaS (happening now)

AI Window (2024–26)

  • Before 2023: Extraction quality too poor
  • 2023–24: GPT-4/Claude "good enough"
  • After 2025: Incumbents catch up on AI

Execution Trajectory

If we execute on schedule, the category is ours before incumbents can respond.

Chapter 10 — Competitive Summary

Competitive Summary Matrix

We're not "better Artlogic." We're a new category: Provenance Compliance SaaS.

Chapter 11 — Investor Q&A

Investor Soundbites

Prepared responses for the questions you'll hear in every meeting.

Anticipating Tough Questions

Won't Artlogic just add this?

"Our moat is the provenance graph with supersession — a schema rewrite that would break 3,000 customers. By the time they commit, we'll own the category."

Isn't TMS already solving this?

"TMS is a Rolls Royce for institutions. We're a Tesla for commercial galleries. Different segment, different speed, different job."

What if TMS launches TMS Lite?

"Their DNA is 12-month enterprise sales. We're 60-day product-led. 10× cheaper, 6× faster. Mid-market won't wait."

More Q&A Responses

Won't AI extraction commoditize?

"The moat isn't the LLM — it's the governed pipeline. Review queue, rules registry, assertion lineage. That's 18 months of workflow engineering."

What about PE-backed competition?

"If Artlogic gets PE for a rewrite, that's 36 months. We'll have 700 customers by then. We're the acquihire target."

The Moat Is Architectural

What looks like "features" is deep infrastructure divergence.

"We link evidence to claims"

→ Non-linear provenance graph with chain identity

"We extract with AI"

→ Governed pipeline: IR → LLM → resolution → review queue

"We track corrections"

→ Supersession without overwrite + assertion lineage

"We cite sources precisely"

→ Span-level citations with stable textHash verification

Incumbents see "evidence linking" as a feature. We know it's a 3-year schema rewrite. That asymmetry is the moat.

Let's Build the Moat Together

The competitive window is 18–36 months. The architecture is ready. The market is turning. The time is now.

MaterielDB • Confidential