1
people have died from curable diseases
since this page started loading...
💀

Financial Plan: Overview

Keywords

war-on-disease, 1-percent-treaty, medical-research, public-health, peace-dividend, decentralized-trials, dfda, dih, victory-bonds, health-economics, cost-benefit-analysis, clinical-trials, drug-development, regulatory-reform, military-spending, peace-economics, decentralized-governance, wishocracy, blockchain-governance, impact-investing

Related: Campaign Budget | Fundraising Strategy

Most financial plans are complicated because the people writing them are either confused or lying. This one is complicated because moving $27.2B annually from military budgets to disease eradication while generating perpetual returns for investors actually IS complicated.

But the architecture is clean: Raise $1B. Spend it to pass the treaty. Manage $27.2B+ annually forever.

Three financial pillars. That’s it.

For detailed breakdowns, see the linked documents. For the overview that explains why this works, keep reading.

The Three Financial Pillars

Fundraising: How To Raise $1B

Instrument: VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds

  • Target Returns: 272% annually (sounds fake but is just arithmetic: $2.72B ÷ $1B)
  • Structure: Debt instrument, senior to all other claims
  • Payout: 10% of all 1% Treaty Fund inflows ($2.72B/year)
  • Protection: Bondholders paid before mission spending
  • Collateral: $27.2B+ annual treaty revenue stream
  • The Pitch: “Invest $1B. Get $2.72B/year. Forever.” (Yes, this sounds like a scam. It’s not. It’s what happens when you redirect money from destruction to construction.)

A financial flow diagram showing the 1B investment into VICTORY Bonds, which captures 10 percent of the 27.2B annual Treaty Fund to generate 2.72B in perpetual annual returns.

A financial flow diagram showing the 1B investment into VICTORY Bonds, which captures 10 percent of the 27.2B annual Treaty Fund to generate 2.72B in perpetual annual returns.

Why This Works

A conceptual flow showing the redirection of capital from the 2.4T global military budget into a 1B fund structure to generate sustainable high-yield returns.

A conceptual flow showing the redirection of capital from the 2.4T global military budget into a 1B fund structure to generate sustainable high-yield returns.
  • The pitch sounds like a scam: “272% returns, forever.” It’s not a scam. It’s what happens when you redirect money from destruction to construction.
  • Clean $1B target (vs confusing $1.2-2.5B range)
  • 10% payout is easy math (vs 5% complex calculations)
  • “Forever” works because treaties are perpetual revenue streams (like mineral rights, not tech startups)
  • Returns are high because the source is high: military budgets total $2.4T globally

Timeline: 12-24 months to raise $1B (simplified structure accelerates fundraising)

Campaign Budget: How To Spend $1B

A breakdown of the 1 billion campaign budget, visualizing the allocation across political lobbying, the global referendum system, and a reserve fund.

A breakdown of the 1 billion campaign budget, visualizing the allocation across political lobbying, the global referendum system, and a reserve fund.

Detailed Breakdown: Campaign Budget

The one-time “activation energy” to pass a 1% treaty, made affordable through AI and viral mechanics:

Category Amount Purpose
Global Referendum

$250M

 Viral referral system ($0.20-1.05/vote tiered), 280M votes, platform development. Budget details: $150M-$410M range
Political Lobbying

$650M

 AI-targeted campaigns (US/EU/G20), Super PACs, MIC conversion, legal/compliance. Outspends pharma + MIC
Reserve Fund

$100M

 Post-passage transition, contingency buffer

Key Innovations

  • AI does most of the work: 60-80% cost reduction vs traditional campaigns
  • Viral mechanics: $0.20/vote vs $5-15 traditional cost per voter
  • Strategic focus: 20 high-impact countries, not all 195
  • Result: $1B achieves what would cost $2-5B traditionally

Timeline: 36-60 months (optimistic) to 120+ months (realistic)

For context: the Paris Climate Agreement took 23 years from Rio (1992) to signing (2015). The landmine ban took 6 years from campaign launch to treaty. Our timeline assumes AI-accelerated campaign operations, viral referendum mechanics, and pre-existing disarmament treaty frameworks. If timeline extends, investor returns simply delay (same perpetual structure, later start)

Treasury Management: How To Manage $27.2B+ Annually

Once the treaty passes, $27.2B flows annually from military budgets to the 1% Treaty Fund.

A diagram illustrating the annual transfer of 27.2 billion from global military budgets into the dedicated 1 percent Treaty Fund.

A diagram illustrating the annual transfer of 27.2 billion from global military budgets into the dedicated 1 percent Treaty Fund.

Revenue Sources

Primary: 1% treaty ($27.2B annually)

  • 100+ nations contribute 1% of military budgets
  • Military spending data already public via SIPRI (tracking since 1966)
  • No complex “verification” needed: either the money arrives or it doesn’t

Why traditional enforcement is unnecessary: The Incentive Alignment Bond mechanism makes compliance self-enforcing. Politicians in non-compliant countries see their Public Good Scores drop, electoral support shift to opponents, and post-office opportunities disappear. Defection isn’t punished; compliance is simply the career-optimal choice. See Why 10%: The Scaling Engine for the political ratchet mechanism

Growth Scenarios (Not Predictions)

Scenario Probability Treaty Level Annual Flow
Base case 60% 1% maintained

$27.2B
Expansion 25% 2% by Year 7 $54B
Rapid success 10% 5% by Year 10 $135B
Reversal 5% Treaty collapses $0

Growth beyond 1% requires: (a) demonstrated health outcomes, (b) continued public pressure, (c) no major geopolitical crisis. None guaranteed

Expenditure Allocation

The 1% Treaty Fund uses an 80/10/10 automatic allocation before any funds reach discretionary spending:

Allocation Percentage Annual Amount Purpose
Pragmatic Clinical Trials & Platform

80%

$21.8B

 Patient subsidies, research, platform
VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond Returns

10%

$2.72B

 Perpetual investor payments
IAB Political Incentives

10%

$2.72B

 Rewards for supporting legislators

The Fixed Costs (10% + 10% = 20%)

A visualization of the 20 percent fixed cost allocation, showing the automated flow of treaty funding into two equal 10 percent pillars for bond returns and political incentives via smart contracts.

A visualization of the 20 percent fixed cost allocation, showing the automated flow of treaty funding into two equal 10 percent pillars for bond returns and political incentives via smart contracts.
  • VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond returns: $2.72B annually (10% of treaty inflows)
  • IAB political incentives: $2.72B annually (10% of treaty inflows)
  • Both are sacred and untouchable (or the system fails)
  • Automatically distributed via smart contracts
  • 272% annual returns to bondholders
Everything Else (80%): Decided by Wishocracy

Instead of committees, 8 billion humans vote via pairwise comparisons:

“Patient subsidies for cancer trials” vs “Infrastructure for rural access” Swipe to allocate: 70% / 30%

Billions of micro-decisions aggregate into humanity’s true priorities.

Probable Emergent Allocation (based on human nature):

  • Patient Subsidies (65-75%): People vote to subsidize their own treatments
  • Infrastructure (10-20%): Only as much as necessary to keep platform running
  • Research Incentives (10-15%): Prizes for first-to-cure, breakthrough bonuses
  • Expansion Campaigns (variable): Growing treasury through bigger treaties

Anti-Corruption Architecture

Traditional corruption vectors and how they’re addressed:

Vector Traditional Risk Mitigation
Committee capture Small groups bribed 8B pairwise voters (coordination cost exceeds capture value)
Information manipulation Propaganda Multiple competing data sources (Copenhagen Consensus, GiveWell, academic literature)
Platform gaming Vote bots Sybil resistance via existing identity systems
Treasury diversion Embezzlement Smart contract automation with multi-sig + time-locks

Not incorruptible. Just more expensive to corrupt than the value of corruption

Dynamic Patient Subsidies

The revolutionary part: your decentralized institutes of health don’t pay researchers. They subsidize patients.

How It Works

Base Subsidy = Medical Research Allocation ÷ Active Trial Participants

Example with 1M participants:

$21.8B ÷ 1M = $21,760 per patient per year

(Note: 80% of $27.2B goes to medical research after bond and IAB payouts)

As more patients join:

5M participants = $4,352 per patient
10M participants = $2,176 per patient

Why This Creates Perfect Incentives

A stakeholder ecosystem diagram illustrating the positive feedback loops and aligned incentives between patients, researchers, and insurance companies within a shared treasury model.

A stakeholder ecosystem diagram illustrating the positive feedback loops and aligned incentives between patients, researchers, and insurance companies within a shared treasury model.
  • Patients organize to grow treasury (2% treaty = double subsidies)
  • Researchers compete to attract patients (better trials win)
  • Insurance companies save money (trials cheaper than chronic care)
  • Everyone wants more people in trials (network effects)

Compare to Grant System

A side-by-side comparison of the traditional NIH grant process and a decentralized health funding model, highlighting differences in speed, decision-making, and overhead costs.

A side-by-side comparison of the traditional NIH grant process and a decentralized health funding model, highlighting differences in speed, decision-making, and overhead costs.
  • NIH grants: 6 months of proposal writing, committees decide, universities take 40% overhead
  • Subsidies via your decentralized institutes of health: Patient wants treatment, joins trial, funds follow automatically, zero overhead

Risk Management

For detailed risk analysis, see Investor Risk Analysis.

A flowchart depicting the flow of investor funds through escrow and milestone-based release mechanisms, protected by smart contract security and on-chain transparency.

A flowchart depicting the flow of investor funds through escrow and milestone-based release mechanisms, protected by smart contract security and on-chain transparency.

Key protections:

  • Assurance contracts: Funds escrowed until milestones hit, automatic refund if targets missed
  • Milestone-based release: Phased funding tied to platform launch, user growth, and treaty progress
  • Downside protection: Even partial treaty adoption ($13B) returns 130% annually to bondholders
  • Smart contract security: Multi-sig wallets, time-locked withdrawals, independent audits
  • On-chain transparency: All treasury movements public, anyone can audit independently

Summary

Component Target Mechanism
Raise

$1B

 VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds
Spend Campaign budget Referendum + lobbying + platform
Manage $27.2B+/year 80/10/10 automatic allocation via Wishocracy
Return 272% annually Perpetual 10% of treaty inflows

The math: Invest $1B → Get $2.72B/year → Forever.