Appreciate Goal But Approach Is Defective

Disclosures

• I started working on the governance issue you seek to address in 1970.
• I created the first design of a digital governance system in 1977 (you can find discussion of my effort in the seminal book, “Network Nation: Human Communication via Computers,” first published in 1978 and republished in 1993).
• As you my have noted, my articles on Medium show my interest in advancing new governance systems has not diminished an iota.
• Also, have had extended exchanges with Mr. Kolber, whom I found to be less than transparent and of dubious character.
• At best, you can count me as part of your skeptic team

Substance

• Agree completely with the need for a new social contract and utility of incorporating blockchain technology.
• That this new platform needs to be global rather than national is a bridge too far. Absent a platform with a track record of having worked out the bugs and demonstrated superiority over the existing systems no one would or should buy in.
• That the platform “must be feasible, resilient and sustainable,” neglects that it must be evolvable.
• That the platform “must captivate the attention through great emotional appeal, not through fear,” is silly. Humans are emotional beings driven by many (~30) emotions, often simultaneously and conflicting. They must all find an outlet for a platform to have a chance at success.
• Suggesting in ”Step 2: We will educate network of thinkers and activists,” is an antiquated, elitist approach. What is required is creation of a dynamic ambient knowledge system able to educate everyone on demand.
• The idea, “Step 3: We will build entirely new city-states,” is both a non sequitur and contradiction of claim your platform is globally oriented.
• That you say you “have an income stream that will fund Phase 1 and solutions for funding of Phase 2 and Phase 3 will emerge as we progress,” is unacceptable. It is either self funded from the start or doomed.
• When you say, “All that’s required for a system reset is an alignment between societal demands, emerging technologies and visionary leaders,” is absurd on its face. Based on first hand experience you grossly underestimate the obstacles. Otherwise we would already have done this successfully.
• Having spoken, interacted and followed many tech leaders you fail to recognize their mix of self-interest and extent of fiduciary duty. They will be followers if successful, not leaders.
• Capitalism is not the problem per se. Rather, it is wealth accumulation that results from the nexus governing and economic elites, as Adam Smith long ago noted. Capitalism itself is an agnostic evolving wealth creation system rapidly approaching a nonlinear post capitalist event.
• When you talk about instituting democracy you give no detail as to what that actually looks like. That is problematic because all public political forms to date have demonstrated major flaws.
• Stating that “the 1st Reboot Humanity Symposium, to be held in a luxury, private, tented safari in South Africa. The Symposium is an invitation-only gathering of 500 of the world’s social and tech innovators for a week of deliberation and decision-making, culminating in the birthing of a new social contract on 02/02/2020,” smacks of a ripoff scam. If you intend to make your new platform a decentralize online one, then all activities should start and end with that operational construction.
• Again, when you say you will, “include the largest online marketing and education campaign ever attempted, in which we plan to inform and educate at least 1bn individuals on the need for a new social contract. During the campaign we will generate a minimum of $325m revenue, through crowdfunding,” smacks of a ripoff scam.
• That no government officials will be in attendance guarantees you will be in a half baked endeavor. Their objections will not disappear and need to be factored into the platform’s conception and development or it will be doomed to fail.
• When you say, “multi-year initiative aimed at thinking boldly about what is required to deal with the systemic challenges the United States faces,” this appears to be contradictory to the global platform idea.
• When you state the endeavor will, “require a seed investment of $5m over a period of 2 years. Funds are required for the following: Retainers for the marketing consultants; Development of the first iteration of the technology platform; Living expenses for the team,” it again smacks of a ripoff scam. $5 million is enough to develop the basic platform (more so if sufficient in-kind services are garnered).

Sorry to rain on your parade. But, as someone who has worked on this problem for decades and is intimately familiar with the requisites for a viable platform, this endeavor, while probably well-meaning, does not meet my expectation is any way.

Doc Huston