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

A comparative visualization showing the significant reduction in costs and timeframes between traditional diplomatic campaigns and the proposed AI-accelerated model.

A comparative visualization showing the significant reduction in costs and timeframes between traditional diplomatic campaigns and the proposed AI-accelerated model.
  • Viral mechanics: $0.20/vote vs $5-15 traditional cost per voter
  • Strategic focus: 20 high-impact countries, not all 195

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 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

A flow diagram illustrating the self-enforcing revenue cycle, where national contributions tracked by SIPRI influence Public Good Scores and align political career incentives with treaty compliance.

A flow diagram illustrating the self-enforcing revenue cycle, where national contributions tracked by SIPRI influence Public Good Scores and align political career incentives with treaty compliance.

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%): Medical Research Allocation

The remaining 80% ($21.8B/year) funds pragmatic clinical trials and research infrastructure. Allocation is governed through transparent democratic mechanisms described in the Wishocracy chapter. Treasury security uses smart contract automation with multi-sig wallets and time-locked withdrawals.

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
Return 272% annually Perpetual 10% of treaty inflows

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