Moin. Leo here, I’ve broken my arm and are unable to write cool blogposts at the moment. So here is a rant, transcribed with DaVinci Resolve Studio and ran through MartinGPT (aka I bossed him around to structure this for me). Unfortunatly some of my witty style has been lost in the process.
– Leo
VShojo’s Collapse Isn’t an Exception – It’s a Symptom
The recent unraveling of VShojo may have shocked fans, but for many VTubers and creators behind the scenes, it felt frustratingly familiar. Power imbalances, non-transparent decision-making, contract disputes, and a disconnect between company goals and creator needs. We’ve seen all this before.
What this shows us is simple: the agency model that much of the VTuber industry relies on isn’t just flawed, it’s fundamentally misaligned with the values and autonomy that creators want (and deserve). And that’s a problem that extends far beyond one company.
Same Old Story: From MCNs to Hollywood
The tension between platforms, agencies, and talent is nothing new. Before VTubing, there were YouTube Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) like Machinima and Maker Studios. Back then, creators were promised growth, exposure, and resources, but what they often got were restrictive contracts, late payments, and no real voice in how their content or careers were managed.
Even further back, we can look at Hollywood, an industry notorious for gatekeeping, coercion, and opaque power dynamics. Especially for women, breaking in often meant navigating systems that were less about talent and more about access to powerful people.
VTubing, despite being digital and new, has inherited a lot of these same issues.
The Real Problem: Misaligned Incentives
At the heart of the issue is a misalignment of interests. Traditional agencies or corporations exist to generate profit and grow themselves. Their purpose is not to help individual creators, but to make their owners and shareholders rich.
That means:
- Creators are often expendable.
- Contracts are written to benefit the company.
- The “brand” is prioritized over the human talent that built it.
- Support services (legal, PR, accounting) are gatekept or dictated.
This isn’t malicious in every case, it’s just the logic of a system that was never designed with creator autonomy in mind.
But Why Chose an Agency in the First Place?
Creating content is a full-time job. Managing finances, negotiating sponsorships, scheduling streams, editing, legal, branding, community, it’s overwhelming. Agencies promise to handle all of that, so creators can focus on doing what they love.
BUT alternatively: You can hire freelancers, agents, or teams, like kw.media, who help you just with the services you need: project management, strategic advice, sponsor negotiations, editing or production. And unlike an agency, you keep your IP, your freedom, and your ability to walk away. Also, hiring someone makes YOU the boss.
Hiring freelancers or agents yourself can be difficult as you don’t necessarily know who is trustworthy and who isn’t. Additionally you don’t get any economy of scale that you would have by hiring someone full-time like in an agency.
So What’s the Alternative? A Creator-Owned Co-op
There is a better way, and it’s not a hypothetical. It’s a model that’s been used in other industries for over a century: a cooperative, or co-op.
In a creator co-op:
- The company is owned and governed by the talent.
- There are no external shareholders, only member-creators.
- Decisions are made democratically: one person, one vote.
- Services (like management, accounting, legal, production) are selected and paid for collectively.
- Profits are reinvested into the co-op or shared transparently, not siphoned off to execs.
How a Creator Co-op Could Work
A creator co-op doesn’t mean everyone needs or wants the same thing. Two basic models allow for flexibility:
1. Flat Fee, Shared Services
Members pay a fixed monthly fee. That money funds shared services that the group votes to adopt – e.g., hiring a group accountant, a shared community manager, legal support, etc. If the group votes “yes,” it’s included. If not, members handle it independently.
2. Tiered, Opt-In Services
There’s a low base fee for general membership (legal registration, governance, basic ops). Then members can opt in to additional services they want. Need a lawyer? Pay into that pool. Want PR help? Opt in. Don’t need a manager? Don’t pay for one.
Both models can be written into the co-op’s charter, and hybrid approaches are also possible.
Legal Foundations: The European SCE
There’s already a legal framework for this: the SCE – Societas Cooperativa Europaea.
- Requires at least five members from two different EU countries
- Valid across all EU nations (and some neighbors)
- Enables shared ownership, voting rights, and pan-European legal status
If creators are spread across different regions (e.g., U.S. or Japan), local co-ops can be created and federated into a larger group.
Privacy & Identity Concerns
For many VTubers, anonymity is core to their identity. And yes, legally, founding a company (especially in Europe or the U.S.) requires real names. But this applies only to the founding members. From there, internal systems can be built with strict access control to ensure that sensitive personal information is not exposed to the group unless explicitly necessary.
This is especially important in an industry where doxxing and harassment are real risks.
One Person = One Vote
Here’s the non-negotiable part: nobody can buy more votes.
In traditional companies, owning 51% means total control. In a co-op, it doesn’t matter how popular, rich, or powerful you are, you get one vote. That’s it.
This creates a fundamentally different power dynamic. Nobody can be outvoted by capital. Leadership comes from consensus, not control.
Multiple Brands, One Co-op
A co-op doesn’t mean everyone has to be part of the same brand. In fact, it can be the opposite.
You could have (using a wild mix of real and fictional examples):
- A science-focused VTuber unit under the label “VTheorem”
- A voice acting-focused group with known names like AmaLee or Cottontail under the label “Muscle Mommies”
- Former members of an agency like VShojo forming their own creative unit under one roof (they could even keep using the name VShojo as a seperate legal entity)
Different brands. Different styles. But shared infrastructure, legal identity, and ownership.
Aligned Incentives, Real Autonomy
If the co-op hires an accountant, a manager, or a community lead and that person doesn’t work out, they can be replaced. Not by an exec, but by vote. The services exist to serve the members, not the other way around.
That also means service providers don’t get to dictate terms. They’re hired, respected, and compensated, but ultimately accountable to the group. That’s a powerful shift in how creators get support.
Some Will Walk Away
Not everyone will agree. Some creators might want to stick with agencies. Some service providers may not like the loss of top-down control. That’s fine. That’s freedom. But it also means that those who stay in the co-op do so because they want to, not because they’re trapped.
That alone is worth building.
Final Thoughts: Build the System You Want to Be Part Of
Building another agency like VShojo doesn’t work. VShojo was meant to be the alternative to Hololive. But it ended up just the same, if not worse (at least Hololive still exists).
Going Indie forever can make sense for some creators, but there is a reason companies are the “big players” in every single industry. Staying Indie will keep you on a backfoot in many regards compared to corporate folks.
Also, Co-Ops are cool. Let’s make one!