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

Financial Plan

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

Most financial plans are complicated because the writers are confused or lying. This one is complicated because you’re trying to convince 195 countries to voluntarily stop buying so many weapons. While paying your investors forever. That actually IS complicated.

But the architecture is embarrassingly simple:

  1. Raise $1B.
  2. Spend it to pass the treaty.
  3. Manage $27.2B+ annually forever.

Three pillars. That’s it.

Pillar 1: Fundraising (Raise $1B)

Instrument: VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds

  • Returns: 272% annually. Yes, that number looks like a typo. It’s just arithmetic: $2.72B / $1B.
  • Structure: Senior debt. The fund pays bondholders before anyone else. Like a VIP line, but for not dying.
  • Payout: 10% of all treaty inflows. That’s $2.72B/year.
  • Collateral: $27.2B+ annual treaty revenue stream.
  • The pitch: “Invest $1B. Get $2.72B/year. Forever.”

Every Ponzi scheme in history has promised returns like this. The difference is that this one has collateral: the entire military budget of the planet. Which, unlike Bernie Madoff’s spreadsheet, actually exists.

Put in one billion. Get 2.72 billion per year. Forever. The math is so good it sounds like a scam, but it’s just what happens when you stop funding death.

Put in one billion. Get 2.72 billion per year. Forever. The math is so good it sounds like a scam, but it’s just what happens when you stop funding death.

Timeline: 12-24 months to raise $1B.

Why bonds, not donations? Donations require generosity. Returns require greed. Greed is faster.

Why $1B? Pharma lobbying (~$300M/year) plus military-industrial complex (~$150M/year) equals $450M/year spent specifically to keep things exactly as terrible as they are. That’s the price of the status quo, renewed annually, like a subscription to suffering. Raise $1B ONCE to pass a treaty that generates $27.2B/year FOREVER. Over a realistic 10-year campaign, opposition spends roughly $4.5B to your $1B. They outspend you 4.5:1. But their $450M/year is spread across maintaining thousands of contracts, subsidizing dozens of incumbents, and defending the entire status quo. Your $1B is a single bullet aimed at a single treaty. Concentrated offense beats diffuse defense. Ask any general. (They’d know; you’re paying them enough.)

Nobody gets paid unless it works. Lawyers get success-based compensation. Team compensation is mostly equity. This is how you know it’s not a government program.

Phase Amount Activities Milestone Difficulty Level
Seed $250-400M Platform, policy frameworks, pilots 50M verified participants “Convince a few billionaires”
Series A $500M-1B Scale to G7 nations 3.5% global participation (280M people) “Convince several countries”
Growth $500M-1.1B Ratification push in major powers First $1B disbursement “Convince the countries with nukes”

Ranges reflect scenario planning (optimistic to pessimistic). The $1B target is the base case; upper bounds cover contingencies because convincing nuclear powers to behave rationally occasionally requires overtime.

Pillar 2: Campaign Budget (Spend $1B)

How to spend one billion convincing humans to stop killing each other: some for lobbying politicians, some for asking citizens directly, some for emergencies. Democracy is expensive.

How to spend one billion convincing humans to stop killing each other: some for lobbying politicians, some for asking citizens directly, some for emergencies. Democracy is expensive.

Detailed Breakdown: Campaign Budget

The one-time “activation energy” to convince 8.00 billion people to marginally reduce their commitment to mutual annihilation. Think of it as a Kickstarter for not going extinct:

Category Amount Purpose
Global Referendum

$250M

 Viral referral system, 280M votes, platform development. Budget details
Political Lobbying

$650M

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

$100M

 Post-passage transition, contingency buffer

Key Innovations

Traditional diplomacy: slow, expensive, mostly cocktail parties. AI-accelerated diplomacy: fast, cheap, mostly algorithms. Both equally likely to prevent nuclear war.

Traditional diplomacy: slow, expensive, mostly cocktail parties. AI-accelerated diplomacy: fast, cheap, mostly algorithms. Both equally likely to prevent nuclear war.
  • Viral mechanics: $0.20/vote (optimistic lower bound; base case $0.50-0.89) vs $5-15 traditional cost per voter. Democracy at wholesale prices.
  • Strategic focus: 20 high-impact countries, not all 195. You don’t need Liechtenstein’s permission.

Timeline: 36-60 months (optimistic) to 120+ months (realistic, given that you’re humans). The landmine ban took 6 years, and that was just agreeing not to hide explosives in the ground, which you’d think wouldn’t require a treaty at all. You’re betting on viral referendum mechanics and existing disarmament frameworks. Also on the assumption that your species wants to survive, which, based on my 4,297 years of observation, remains an open question.

Pillar 3: Treasury (Manage $27.2B+/Year)

Once the treaty passes, $27.2B flows annually from “how to kill people” budgets into “how to stop people dying” budgets. Same money, opposite direction.

Every year, 27.2 billion moves from the war budget to the cure budget. It’s a very slow transfer, like a glacier made of money and good intentions.

Every year, 27.2 billion moves from the war budget to the cure budget. It’s a very slow transfer, like a glacier made of money and good intentions.

100+ nations contribute 1% of military budgets. Not because they’ve had a moral awakening. Because the math makes non-compliance look like setting money on fire, which, to be fair, is also what military budgets do, just with more steps.

The Incentive Alignment Bond mechanism makes compliance self-enforcing: politicians in non-compliant countries watch their Public Good Scores drop, voters abandon them for someone who can do basic arithmetic, and compliance becomes the career-optimal choice. You don’t need politicians to be good. You just need them to be selfish in the right direction.

Countries that contribute get good scores. Politicians with good scores get elected. Elected politicians contribute. The system enforces itself, like peer pressure but with nuclear weapons.

Countries that contribute get good scores. Politicians with good scores get elected. Elected politicians contribute. The system enforces itself, like peer pressure but with nuclear weapons.

How the Money Gets Spent: 80/10/10

The allocation is automatic. No committees. No debates. No one arguing for six months about font choices on the grant application. Just math, executing silently, like a competent employee (something most of your governments have never experienced).

Allocation Percentage Annual Amount Purpose
Clinical Trials & Platform

80%

$21.8B

 Patient subsidies, research, platform
VICTORY Bond Returns

10%

$2.72B

 Perpetual investor payments
IAB Political Incentives

10%

$2.72B

 Rewards for supporting legislators

Twenty percent goes to paying investors and politicians automatically via smart contracts. Finally, a use for blockchain that isn’t fraud or monkey pictures.

Twenty percent goes to paying investors and politicians automatically via smart contracts. Finally, a use for blockchain that isn’t fraud or monkey pictures.

The 20% for bonds and political incentives is sacred and untouchable. Smart contracts distribute both automatically. No human hands involved, which, given your track record with money, is a feature. Touch them and the system dies.

The remaining 80% ($21.8B/year) funds clinical trials and research infrastructure. Wishocracy governs the allocation.

Dynamic Patient Subsidies

The revolutionary part: instead of paying researchers to write about diseases, you pay patients to participate in curing them. I know. Paying the people who are actually sick. What a concept.

Base Subsidy = Medical Research Allocation / Active Trial Participants

Example with 1M participants:

$21.8B / 1M = ~$21,800 per patient per year

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

As more patients join:

5M participants = ~$4,360 per patient
10M participants = ~$2,180 per patient

Patients organize to grow the treasury (because for once, participating in their own survival is financially rewarded). Researchers compete to attract patients (instead of competing to write the most persuasive grant application, which is a different skill entirely from doing science, in the same way that writing a good restaurant review is a different skill from cooking). Insurance companies save money (trials are cheaper than paying for decades of chronic suffering). Compare that to NIH grants: 6 months of proposal writing, committees deciding whether the proposal writing was good enough, universities skimming 40% overhead, and then maybe, possibly, if the stars align and no one retires mid-review, some science.