We're building proof
that agreements happened.

People work together across borders every day: freelancers and clients, founders and contractors, people making commitments that matter. But the record of what was agreed usually lives in one place, controlled by one side, with no independent source of truth.

I didn't build TrustChain from a market report. I built it because I lived the problem, again and again. Work delivered, payment vanished. Terms quietly rewritten after the fact. No record strong enough to fight back with, and no neutral standard to point to.

I also spent years around crypto, where I saw both sides of what a public ledger can do: how useful it is, and how easily it gets turned against people. That taught me what most people miss. The technology was never the problem. The problem is that in 2026 there's a standard for everything except a deal between two people. So I set out to build one, and to put this technology on the side of the honest for once.

The problem is structural. Notarization and timestamping services do exist, and the cryptography has been settled for years, but they are built for people who already know they need them, and they stop at proving that a file existed. Nothing joins the whole chain for an ordinary two-person deal: a verified identity on each side, the terms they actually agreed, proof that neither can quietly change them, and a plain-language read of what is being signed. That is the gap TrustChain is built for.

Most AI legal answers are confident and unverifiable. You are told what the rule is with nothing to check it against, and the parts that are wrong look exactly like the parts that are right.

Where we have indexed the legislation, the assistant answers from the statute text itself and shows you where the answer came from: the act, the section, the consolidation date of the version it is quoting, and a link straight to the official government source. It also flags provisions whose amendments have been passed but are not yet in force, the case most likely to make a correct-sounding answer wrong.

And where it has no governing provision, it says so and stops, instead of filling the gap with something plausible. Refusing is the harder behaviour to build and the more useful one to have.

Indexed coverage today is British Columbia, beginning with the Builders Lien Act. Everywhere else the assistant gives general orientation and says plainly that it is not citing governing law.