Problems: EducationAccess To Know-HowHumanity's goals and AIReshape Global Governance To Address Global Catastrophic RisksEnabling People to Realize Ideas and Solve ProblemsSecurity of Investment Into Bleeding-Edge InnovationTechnological UnemploymentEnable open source projects be supported with comparable amounts to startupsCreating Deep Connections and Love in SocietyUniting behind goalsEnsuring Safe Arrival of Technological SingularityExtropyAvoiding Creation of Predatory SuperintelligenceEnable Brains to Mine CurrencyEconomyAn economic system that frees humanity from unnecessary suffering and meaningless workMake Money Represent and be Traceable to True ValuePeople often talk about solutions in conferences, but don't collect them for action afterwards.

Financial Think-Tank ("Fintank")


Public self-explanatory, inter-lingual, financial, programmable, hierarchical think-tank


It is said that people don't need a boss, people just need an understandable structure on how things get done. So, by living I noticed a pattern that people use a very simple algorithm to solve all problems:

  1. Conceptualize what they want.
  2. Think of ideas how to get it.
  3. Instantiate them as projects.
  4. Break them down to stages.
  5. Work on tasks within them.

Look at the world, - everything that was ever made went through this scheme. The process, which is repeated in countless companies and individuals is automatically creating the very useful procedural knowledge, it instantiates so-called "Work Breakdown Structures" or "Hierarchical Task Networks," which are the graphs which can be used to learn to replicate the success stories of others.

Financial think-tank would be a system that allows people to work in public, directly, without intermediaries like corporations, deciding together, and directly sharing the capital and cash flows via the comment system that supports transfers of resources. Moreover, it would include the structure, which allows to understand how every product was made.

We can do so, because everything that was ever made by people was driven by people’s work to satisfy their needs, and everything that was ever constructed could be broken down to the following decomposition:









  1. Whenever someone wants something, they conceptualize it in terms of some concept, which refers to some asset y. Whenever someone needs assets, they specify conditions for the asset referred to by concept, e.g. Need: 0 < y < 2. Need here represents such a condition.
  2. Whenever someone wants sets of conditions to be satisfied, they specify a set of Needs, they refer to, in a vectorized form e.g., G: vector1 < Y < vector2. Goal here represents such conditions.
  3. Whenever someone comes up with an idea to get what they want, they effectively had come up with some principle to influence the world F by some hypothetical actions X, to satisfy the goal’s inequalities by equality F(X)=Y (implying F(X) ∈ G). Idea here represents such a solution.
  4. Whenever someone comes up with a plan, what they did, is they came up with a concrete set of actions using some technology to realize the hypothetical actions X as ordered set (x1, x2,..., xN). Plan here represents such a decomposition.
  5. Whenever someone comes up with a milestone xM, what they did, is they had just set out to take some amount of resources and convert into some highly likely corresponding deliverable yM. Step here represents such an assumption.
  6. Whenever someone comes up with a task in a milestone, what they just did, is set out to do some concrete action Z to approach yM. Task here represents such a prototype of action.
  7. Whenever someone actually tries to do some work to get a task done, what they just did, is produced an attempt z’ for the task. Work here represents such a task attempt.

So, if we simply have content types for each of these categories, and concepts (Types, and Instances) to refer to anything that people may want, and link them up, people can publicly see the decompositions explaining how making of anything was a piece of math to solve F(X)=Y, and most people can understand how most of the things are/were made.


(suppress notifications) (Optional) Please, log in.



On point -- people will not be able to share their know-how openly as long as they are paid by companies with intellectual property hiding policies.

The idea of financial think-tank includes the rationale, that if we enable people to directly get paid in society, without intermediaries like companies, -- the society gets the know-how!

I would extend this idea to a new concept : "contributionalism" - an economy based on meeting human goals rather than meeting growth targets and "making money".

People would have an access to a global economic dashboard of wants and needs. Then, they can choose which one they could take on.

Even if there is an advent of automation, there will still be a set of tasks that only humans can carry out, such as minding other peoples' animals, children, etc. And also, a human needs to tell robots what to do in order to avoid some bias that come out of perfect algorithmization and automation. If robots will serve humans, then humans will need to tell them what they want.

So a dashboard could contain a set of things that a person wants, and a set of tasks that one needs to do in order to get them. Suppose there is a goal or need that is not sufficiently met among a large number of people, then one should get a warning in the dashboard. Then, one will be encouraged to contribute to it if they have the necessary skills for it.

Exactly, what we're trying to achieve here now, at