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

Historical Precedents

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

Before you say “this is impossible,” let me remind you: humans have accidentally done smart things before.

Not often. But occasionally, when properly motivated by either fear or greed (usually both), your species stumbles into competence.

Here’s proof you’ve done every single part of this plan already. You just haven’t combined them yet, like someone who owns all the ingredients for bread but keeps eating them separately.

Humans Doing Smart Things (Accidentally): A Collection

That Time Humans Banned Landmines (Yes, Really)

What happened: A bunch of NGOs decided landmines were bad actually. They convinced 160 nations to sign a treaty banning them90 in 1997. Major military powers initially opposed it. The NGOs won anyway.

A visualization showing the flow of influence from NGO advocacy to the signing of the Ottawa Treaty by 160 nations, overcoming the opposition of major military powers.

A visualization showing the flow of influence from NGO advocacy to the signing of the Ottawa Treaty by 160 nations, overcoming the opposition of major military powers.

Why this matters for you: This proves citizen movements can create binding international law even when governments don’t want to. If humans can globally ban a weapon because “it’s mean,” you can definitely get them to redirect 1% of the murder budget to the not-murder budget.

War Bonds: That Time Grandma Funded WW2

What happened: Governments needed money to fight Nazis. They sold “war bonds” - basically IOUs that paid interest - directly to regular people. The U.S. raised $185 billion138 (trillions in today’s papers).

Why this matters for you: Your grandparents gave the government money to stop Hitler and got 4% returns. You’re offering 272% returns to stop cancer. VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds are the same thing except with better ROI and fewer Nazis (hopefully zero Nazis).

The formula worked: mix moral incentives (patriotism) with financial self-interest (interest payments). You’re just applying it to a different war - the one against your own mortality.

Comparison of the historical War Bond model versus the proposed VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond model.

Comparison of the historical War Bond model versus the proposed VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond model.

The Global Fund (Proof That New Health Institutions Can Exist)

What happened: In 2002, the world created a new organization139 to pool billions for fighting AIDS, TB, and malaria. It bypassed traditional bureaucracies and just… worked.

A visualization showing the evolution from the Global Fund’s focus on three specific diseases to a decentralized network of health institutes covering all diseases through a scaling process.

A visualization showing the evolution from the Global Fund’s focus on three specific diseases to a decentralized network of health institutes covering all diseases through a scaling process.

Why this matters for you: A network of decentralized institutes of health (DIH) isn’t fantasy. It’s the Global Fund but bigger and for all diseases. If humans can create new health institutions for three diseases, you can create one for all of them. It’s just multiplication.

Post-WW2: That Time America Accidentally Discovered Peace Is Profitable

What happened: 1945: US military spending was 37% of GDP93 (we were very serious about the war thing). 1948: Cut to 7%. That’s a 30 percentage point drop - not 1%, THIRTY.

The results: The greatest economic boom in human history: - GDP growth: 8% yearly for a decade140 (vs normal 2-3%) - Home ownership doubled141 (middle class explosion) - GI Bill created modern knowledge economy - Built the interstate highway system

Why this matters for you: You’re asking for 1%. America did 30% and got rich. This is like asking someone who lost 100 pounds if they can spare 3 pounds. The answer is obviously yes, and they’ll probably feel better.

The economic correlation between massive reductions in military spending and the subsequent historic economic boom in the post-WWII era.

The economic correlation between massive reductions in military spending and the subsequent historic economic boom in the post-WWII era.

The 1990s: When the Berlin Wall Fell and Wallets Exploded

What happened: Cold War ended. Military spending dropped from 6% of GDP to 3%. That’s $300B redirected from pointing missiles at Russia to literally anything else.

A visual representation of the ‘Peace Dividend,’ showing the redirection of 3 percent of GDP from military spending into economic catalysts like the commercial internet and productivity growth.

A visual representation of the ‘Peace Dividend,’ showing the redirection of 3 percent of GDP from military spending into economic catalysts like the commercial internet and productivity growth.

The results: The 1990s economic boom everyone remembers fondly: - Internet became commercial (freed resources) - First budget surplus in 30 years - Unemployment: 3.9% (lowest in a generation) - Productivity: +2.5% yearly (double the normal rate)

Why this matters for you: The pattern isn’t subtle. Every time humans stop spending money on murder, prosperity appears like magic. It’s not magic. It’s arithmetic.

Switzerland: 200 Years of Not Shooting Anyone = Being Very Rich

What they have: Mountains, cows, and a complete lack of natural resources. They’re surrounded by countries that kept starting world wars. They have been neutral since 1815.

A conceptual visualization showing how Switzerland’s policy of neutrality and low defense spending relative to its neighbors has contributed to its long-term economic prosperity.

A conceptual visualization showing how Switzerland’s policy of neutrality and low defense spending relative to its neighbors has contributed to its long-term economic prosperity.

What they spend on defense: 0.7% of GDP (purely defensive - they’re not invading anyone with those Alps)

The results

  • $93K GDP per capita (vs US $76K)
  • Universal healthcare, excellent quality, 12% of GDP (vs US 18%)
  • Life expectancy: 84 years (vs US 79)
  • Last invaded: Never (Napoleon tried in 1798, didn’t go well for him)

Why this matters for you: Peace dividends compound over centuries. Switzerland proves you don’t need oil, colonies, or weapons to get rich. You just need to not waste money on stupid things. They’ve been doing this for 200 years. You’re asking for a 1% start.

Comparative analysis of Switzerland’s economic and health outcomes versus the United States, correlated with defense spending.

Comparative analysis of Switzerland’s economic and health outcomes versus the United States, correlated with defense spending.

The 3.5% Rule: The Cheat Code for Democracy

What scientists discovered: When just 3.5% of a population actively participates in sustained resistance, success becomes nearly inevitable. Not 51%. Not majority. Just 3.5%.

A comparison showing that only a small 3.5 percent slice of a population is needed to trigger successful social change, contrasted against the much larger 51 percent majority usually assumed necessary.

A comparison showing that only a small 3.5 percent slice of a population is needed to trigger successful social change, contrasted against the much larger 51 percent majority usually assumed necessary.

Historical proof

  • Civil rights: 3.5% ended segregation
  • Indian independence: 3.5% beat the British Empire (nuclear power defeated by non-violence, embarrassing)
  • Women’s suffrage: 3.5% got half of humanity the vote
  • Gay marriage: 3.5% made love legal

Why this matters for you: The global referendum needs 280 million people (3.5% of humanity). Not billions. Just 3.5% clicking “yes, I prefer not dying” on a website. If humans can mobilize 3.5% to get the vote, you can mobilize 3.5% to not die from cancer.

A visual comparison showing how major historical movements achieved success at the 3.5 percent participation threshold, applied to the goal of 280 million people for a global referendum.

A visual comparison showing how major historical movements achieved success at the 3.5 percent participation threshold, applied to the goal of 280 million people for a global referendum.

When Good Intentions Met Reality (And Lost)

Failures teach more than successes. Here’s every mistake past movements made, so you don’t repeat them.

Eisenhower’s Warning: A 5-Star General Tried to Tell You

In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower - former 5-star general, Supreme Allied Commander, the guy who beat the Nazis - used his farewell address to warn you about something terrifying:

The warning: “We must guard against the military-industrial complex.”

A visual representation of Eisenhower’s warning, illustrating the zero-sum trade-off between military production and social welfare resources.

A visual representation of Eisenhower’s warning, illustrating the zero-sum trade-off between military production and social welfare resources.

The reality check: “Every gun made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies theft from those who hunger.”

The prophecy: He predicted the permanent war economy you’re currently living in, where military spending becomes self-perpetuating regardless of whether anyone’s actually threatening you.

Why this matters: Eisenhower understood you can’t dismantle the system. You have to give it something more profitable to build instead. He was right. Nobody listened. Now you get to try his solution: redirect the resources.

The Nuclear Freeze Movement: Millions of People, Zero Results

What happened: In the 1980s, a massive global movement142 tried to freeze nuclear weapons production. Millions of protesters. Enormous popular support. Good vibes everywhere.

A conceptual diagram contrasting the failure of moral pressure against the military-industrial complex with the proposed strategy of redirecting financial greed toward peace.

A conceptual diagram contrasting the failure of moral pressure against the military-industrial complex with the proposed strategy of redirecting financial greed toward peace.

The result: Failed completely. Nuclear arsenals kept growing.

Why it failed: You cannot defeat money with good intentions. The military-industrial complex has more money than God, and protesters have signs. This is why a 1% treaty doesn’t ask nicely - it bribes everyone into submission. You’re not fighting greed, you’re redirecting it.

The lesson: Make peace more profitable than war, or peace loses. Every time.

Occupy Wall Street: When “We’re Angry” Isn’t a Strategy

What happened: In 2011, thousands occupied parks143 to protest economic inequality. They changed the conversation! They raised awareness! They accomplished nothing permanent!

A contrast between the diffuse, scattered energy of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the focused, linear path of a single-demand strategy leading to specific outcomes.

A contrast between the diffuse, scattered energy of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the focused, linear path of a single-demand strategy leading to specific outcomes.

Why it failed: No specific demand. Just diffuse anger at “the system.” The energy dissipated because nobody knew what success looked like.

Why this matters: This plan has ONE demand: ratify a 1% treaty. That’s it. Not “fix inequality” or “be better.” One specific, achievable, measurable goal. A network of decentralized institutes of health (DIH), a decentralized framework for drug assessment (dFDA), and the cures are all downstream of that single objective.

When you ask for everything, you get nothing. When you ask for 1%, you might get it.

On How Rich People Made Money Doing Crazy Things (And Why That Matters)

To make this work, you need investment terms that don’t sound insane to people with money. Fortunately, history is full of rich people doing riskier things for lower returns.

A comparison between unconventional investment ideas framed with professional terminology versus historical high-risk ventures that yielded lower returns.

A comparison between unconventional investment ideas framed with professional terminology versus historical high-risk ventures that yielded lower returns.

On The Time Junk Bonds Saved Capitalism

Michael Milken & High-Yield (“Junk”) Bonds

In the 1980s, a guy named Michael Milken figured out something revolutionary: if you offer people high enough returns, they’ll invest in almost anything144.

A comparison of the risk-return relationship for traditional, high-yield, and VICTORY bonds, illustrating the ‘high-yield premium’ needed to attract capital for high-risk ventures.

A comparison of the risk-return relationship for traditional, high-yield, and VICTORY bonds, illustrating the ‘high-yield premium’ needed to attract capital for high-risk ventures.

Wall Street called these “junk bonds” because they were trash. Milken called them “high-yield bonds” because marketing. He financed leveraged buyouts that the establishment said were impossible, raising billions.

The establishment said it would never work. It worked spectacularly until it didn’t (Milken went to prison for unrelated fraud, which is how you know it was successful).

The Lesson: To attract capital for high-risk ventures, you must offer absurdly high returns. VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds promise 270% returns. This isn’t generosity, it’s economics. It’s the “high-yield” premium necessary to compensate for betting on the unprecedented act of governments doing something smart.

If people invested in literal junk, they’ll invest in not dying. You just need to price it correctly.

On The Time George Soros Broke England

George Soros & The Quantum Fund

In 1992, George Soros risked $10 billion betting that the UK would have to leave the European Exchange Rate Mechanism145.

A diagram illustrating the binary outcomes of Soros’s high-stakes bet against the British Pound, showing the tension between private capital and government policy decisions.

A diagram illustrating the binary outcomes of Soros’s high-stakes bet against the British Pound, showing the tension between private capital and government policy decisions.

This was a binary political bet: Either the UK government capitulates, or Soros loses everything.

He won. Made over $1 billion in a single day. The Bank of England lost. The Queen was reportedly not amused.

The Lesson: It’s possible to deploy immense private capital to bet on political outcomes. The trick is framing it as sophisticated arbitrage instead of what it really is: gambling on whether governments will do the obvious thing or the stupid thing.

History suggests governments usually do the stupid thing. But occasionally they surprise you. That’s the bet you’re making.

On When Smart People Lost All Their Money (The Cautionary Tales)

Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM): When Nobel Laureates Get Humbled

In 1998, a hedge fund run by actual Nobel Prize winners collapsed and required a $3.6 billion bailout146.

A comparison between historical financial failures and the specific risk mitigation strategies integrated into the VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond.

A comparison between historical financial failures and the specific risk mitigation strategies integrated into the VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond.

Their crime? Building sophisticated mathematical models that accounted for everything except the part where Russia just… defaults. Whoops.

These were the smartest people in finance. They had Nobels. They had PhDs from MIT. They had models that predicted everything except reality.

The Lesson: Never underestimate systemic risk, also known as “the part where everything goes wrong at once.”

For this project, the “black swan” is complete political failure. Everyone says no, the treaty dies, and you look stupid.

This is why the plan includes:

  • Assurance contracts: If we don’t hit the fundraising target, everyone gets their money back. No partial failures allowed.
  • First-loss philanthropic capital: Rich altruists absorb the initial losses so regular investors don’t get wiped out if things go sideways.

It’s risk mitigation for people who understand that Nobel laureates can still be catastrophically wrong.

The South Sea Bubble (1720): When Everyone Went Insane

In 1720, people in England went collectively mad and invested in a company that promised a monopoly on trade with South America147.

Neat! Except the company had almost no actual trade. And no profits. And no business plan beyond “tell people we’re going to be really rich.”

The stock went up 1,000%. Then it crashed. Everyone lost everything. Isaac Newton lost £20,000, which in today’s money is “a lot.” He famously said “I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.”

The Lesson: Speculation based on hype alone ends badly.

This is why VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond payouts are contractually tied to real, verifiable events:

  • Treaty ratification (actual government signatures)
  • Real government money flowing into the 1% Treaty Fund
  • Actual treatments being tested in pragmatic clinical trials

No hype. No maybes. No “we’re going to be really rich someday.” Just math tied to observable reality.

If you’re going to lose your money, at least it won’t be because the plan promised a monopoly on South American trade without checking if South America exists.

4. The Ultimate Failsafe: The Worst-Case Scenario is Still a Win

Even if one is skeptical of the above precedents, the core proposal has a powerful, built-in failsafe.

A conceptual comparison illustrating how the worst-case scenario of the decentralized proposal still results in a superior outcome compared to the current status quo.

A conceptual comparison illustrating how the worst-case scenario of the decentralized proposal still results in a superior outcome compared to the current status quo.

Let’s imagine your decentralized institutes of health is a complete and total failure. Imagine every dollar of the $27.2B is mismanaged, wasted, or simply dumped into the ocean.

The world would still be better off.

Why?

Because we would still have achieved a 1% reduction in the global capacity for organized violence and destruction.

  • Fewer bombs.
  • Fewer missiles.
  • Fewer AI-powered weapons systems.

A visualization of the asymmetrical risk profile, contrasting the ‘worst-case’ outcome of reduced global weaponry with the ‘best-case’ outcome of curing major human diseases.

A visualization of the asymmetrical risk profile, contrasting the ‘worst-case’ outcome of reduced global weaponry with the ‘best-case’ outcome of curing major human diseases.

The absolute worst possible outcome of this plan is still a net gain for global security, stability, and human life. The best possible outcome is a cure for your cancer, your grandmother’s Alzheimer’s, and every other disease that plagues humanity.

This asymmetrical risk profile, where failure is still a victory and success changes the course of human history, is the ultimate justification for the mission. It’s a bet we can’t afford not to take.