Listen Get

Earth Optimization Prize 90-Day Pilot

A Bounded Institutional Launch Package For The First Public Contest, Scoreboard, And Red-Team Cycle

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

Note

Document Type: Institutional pilot proposal
Pilot Length: 90 days
Default Role: Initiating host, not sovereign owner
Primary Goal: Make the Earth Optimization Prize138 publicly real without creating a single point of failure

Pilot Objective

Launch the first credible public version of the Earth Optimization Prize selection process.

At the end of 90 days, the host institution should have produced:

  1. a public rules page,
  2. a named review panel,
  3. a funded adversarial-review pool,
  4. a live public scoreboard, and
  5. the first set of credible submissions and public commitments.

That is the minimum viable institutional launch package.

Problem Statement

The broader project is trying to solve a coordination failure, not just publish another proposal.

Humanity already has candidate ingredients for a better trajectory: cheaper pragmatic clinical trials, better public-goods allocation, measurable policy learning, and large waste pools that could be reallocated via the Political Dysfunction Tax46 and US Efficiency Audit139. What it lacks is a public mechanism that can do all four of these at once:

  1. compare integrated plans against a visible benchmark,
  2. reward serious participation and recruitment,
  3. surface better replacements through adversarial review,
  4. create a credible bridge from public support to political adoption.

That is why the first 90 days matter. The pilot is the step where the project becomes inspectable public infrastructure instead of a stack of papers.

Why This Pilot Matters

The prize is trying to shift humanity off a current trajectory where the destructive economy140 rises from 11.5% of GDP today toward 48.8% by year 15. The model reaches the failed-state danger zone in 8 years and parity with the productive economy in 15 years if that loop is not broken.

The upside of a better branch is large enough to justify building public coordination infrastructure around it. The Minimum Sustainable Trajectory (1% Treaty)141 adds $14.7M in modeled lifetime income and 6.55 years of healthy life by year 15. The Wishonian Optimal Governance Trajectory adds $51.9M and 15.7 years.

The 90-day pilot is not trying to achieve those outcomes directly. It is trying to create the public machinery that can discover, test, and coordinate around the best available route toward them.

What The Pilot Is A Pilot For

The full benchmark system is Earth Optimization Protocol v1. A sponsor does not need to memorize the whole document, but it should understand the stack it is helping bring into public view.

Component Job in the larger system Pilot relevance
Earth Optimization Prize Open contest, scoreboard, and outcome-linked success pool Directly launched now
Global Referendum Visible public support and preference signal Adjacent next-step layer
Incentive Alignment Bonds Finance lobbying and implementation pressure Later financing layer
1% Treaty Redirect 1% of military spending into clinical trials and related incentives Later legal/political target
Decentralized Institutes of Health Treasury and verification protocol for redirected funds Downstream operating layer
Your decentralized FDA Cheap, high-throughput pragmatic trial engine Downstream implementation layer
Wishocracy Public preference aggregation for budget allocation Used as part of plan comparison and later allocation
Optimocracy / OPG / OBG Evidence and recommendation machinery for policy and budget choices Background evidence layer for judging and later operations
Political Dysfunction Tax and US Efficiency Audit Waste maps and opportunity-cost accounting Background case for why reallocation matters
Legal framework Treaty/statutory/election-law path Constraint set for credible contenders
Phase 2 monetary transition Long-run replacement of fiat-era fiscal/monetary machinery Explicitly outside pilot scope

The initiating institution is not being asked to operationalize every downstream component in 90 days. It is being asked to launch the public selection, review, and visibility layer that decides what should advance.

Existing Implementation Base

The pilot is extending an existing implementation base, not inventing the entire stack from scratch.

Existing asset Current state Why it matters for the pilot
Optimitron Live public app with budget analysis, policy analysis, comparisons, misconceptions testing, alignment flows, and prize/referendum entry points Gives the pilot a visible software base immediately
Optimitron repository Public monorepo implementing the core engine, app packages, data layer, and treasury packages Lets reviewers inspect real code instead of a PDF
Evidence machine stack Optimocracy, OPG, and OBG components already implemented in code Reduces epistemic risk around the scoring/recommendation layer
Wishocracy stack Pairwise preference aggregation and alignment logic already built Reduces product risk around citizen preference collection
Identity / participation layer Auth, profile, referral plumbing, and World ID-aware participation surfaces already exist Means the pilot can focus on public process rather than first building account infrastructure
Treasury packages PRIZE / VOTE / IAB / $WISH packages are already present in the codebase Makes it plausible to connect the pilot to later financing rails without re-architecting from scratch
Testing base Roughly 2,900+ tests across the workspace, plus strict TypeScript and typed schemas Gives the institution something closer to a software program than a speculative concept note

For a host institution, this changes the nature of the ask. The pilot is not “please fund the invention of a whole new universe.” It is “please host the first credible public selection and review process around an already substantial implementation base.”

Scope

This pilot covers only Stage 1 of the broader launch sequence.

Included:

  1. challenge publication,
  2. benchmark-plan publication of Earth Optimization Protocol v1,
  3. panel formation,
  4. adversarial review,
  5. scoreboard launch,
  6. first submission intake,
  7. first public commitments and milestone reporting.

Explicitly out of scope for the pilot:

  1. final institutional endorsement of Earth Optimization Protocol v1,
  2. treaty passage,
  3. large-scale lobbying execution,
  4. permanent governance lock-in,
  5. making the host institution the sole root of trust.

Host Responsibilities

The host institution is responsible for a bounded set of public infrastructure tasks.

Responsibility Output
Publish the challenge Public pilot page explaining targets, constraints, timeline, and submission path
Convene reviewers Named panel roster with clear filtering role and conflict-of-interest standard
Fund adversarial review Public bounty pool for red-team critiques, metric-gaming attacks, and superior replacement components
Launch public measurement Scoreboard showing host milestones, submission counts, and early participation/commitment signals
Coordinate first cycle Public timeline for submission, review, challenge, revision, and selection of serious contenders

Governance Boundaries

The host institution should agree to these constraints up front.

  1. Hosting does not mean the institution owns the mechanism.
  2. Hosting does not require endorsing v1 as final truth.
  3. Rules, documentation, and milestone reporting should be public.
  4. Interfaces and implementation paths should be replaceable.
  5. Another host should be able to continue the process if the first host stops.

The central principle is:

The first institution should make the process credible, not captive.

Suggested 90-Day Timeline

Window Target
Days 1-14 Publish pilot memo, challenge rules, evaluation criteria, and candidate panel list
Days 15-30 Finalize panel, open submissions, and announce red-team bounty terms
Days 31-60 Run first adversarial-review cycle, publish critiques, and keep scoreboard live
Days 61-90 Publish revised contender set, summarize lessons, and decide whether to expand into the next public phase

Milestones

The pilot should track sponsor-facing milestones first, then public-growth milestones.

Early Public Milestones

  1. first visible seed commitments,
  2. first serious participant cohort,
  3. first replicated public references to the scoreboard,
  4. first external critique or replacement proposal,
  5. first evidence that the process is attracting people beyond the host’s own network.

Deliverables

By day 90, the host should be able to point to a concrete package:

  1. one public pilot page,
  2. one public ruleset,
  3. one named panel roster,
  4. one public bounty pool,
  5. one live scoreboard,
  6. one public summary of submissions and critiques,
  7. one decision memo on whether to expand, revise, or hand off to a successor host.

Budget Framework

This pilot is intentionally modular. The host does not need to fund the full downstream campaign. It only needs to fund the first credible public test.

The budget categories are:

  1. program management,
  2. challenge-page and scoreboard implementation,
  3. expert-panel honoraria if desired,
  4. adversarial-review bounty pool,
  5. legal/compliance review,
  6. editorial and communications support.

The right budget is the smallest amount that makes the pilot visibly real and publicly legible. The pilot should be cheap enough to approve quickly and serious enough that outsiders can no longer dismiss the process as hypothetical.

Success Criteria

The pilot succeeds if, by day 90:

  1. the process exists in public,
  2. serious outsiders can inspect and attack it,
  3. the benchmark plan has at least one credible challenger or red-team critique,
  4. the scoreboard makes progress legible,
  5. the next institution or funder can join without needing private permission from the host.

Expansion Decision

If the pilot works, the next phase is not “centralize everything under the first institution.” The next phase is:

  1. expand participation,
  2. admit stronger challengers,
  3. add co-hosts or successor hosts,
  4. connect the contest outputs to PRIZE deposits, the referendum, and later implementation financing.

If the pilot fails, the output should still be useful: a public record of what broke, what was attacked, and what must be improved before trying again.