To maximize human well-being, we have to create a pro-social incentive system that financially rewards people for creating well-being for others and imposes a cost for undermining the well-being of others.

A pro-social incentive system has to align financial incentives with moral incentives, because in a good society, financial incentives should never undermine moral incentives

In an effective pro-social incentive system, the only way to benefit oneself should be to first benefit the community. The rewards people receive from the community must be directly proportional to the benefit they create for others.

The best possible incentive system is based on competitive cooperation. The incentives it creates are identical to those found in between-group selection and within sports teams.

A society should be structured like a giant sports league, where small teams compete against each other in their ability to produce well-being for the community. This results in a multicellular society with the evolutionary dynamics of between-group selection.

The best mechanism to reward team members of a cell is by issuing small ownership stakes called workshares on the basis of the hours they have worked for the organization. Instead of being paid a salary, contributors are compensated with stock.

As a form of value, reputation offers the best counterweight to money since it can itself be converted into money.

To better allocate our resources, we need to create a machine-readable reputation system and integrate this information into our marketplace. By combining this information with price signals, we create a pro-social marketplace with a new incentive system that corresponds to our values. The machine-readable reputation system is the mechanism by which an ordinary marketplace can be turned into a pro-social marketplace.

Instead of trying to engineer a comprehensive regulatory system, we should seek to engineer a perfectly reflecting mirror.

In order not to produce negative externalities in our ecosystem, the digital currency we create needs to simulate certain properties of energy/matter so as not to contradict or interfere with the laws of thermodynamics.

Money serves the same function in our economy as sunlight does in nature. The design of our monetary system should therefore simulate the way the Sun’s energy flows through our ecosystem.

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. We should therefore make sure that our money supply, which is what we use to allocate energy/matter, remains stable.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when we transform energy from one state to another or when we transfer energy from one body to another, part of the energy is lost to entropy. To simulate entropy in our monetary system, we have to extract a part of the money from circulation with every transaction.

To simulate the metabolic flow of the Sun’s energy within our ecosystem, we should take as much money out of the system at one end as we put in at the other. By balancing the universal basic income that we put in with entropic transaction fees that siphon the money out, we can keep the money supply stable.

The best money humans can ever invent will be pegged to three things at the same time: solar energy, human productivity and time.

The best way to issue money is in the form of a universal basic income paid out to every citizen without any strings attached. All money in circulation should be issued only in this way, as positive income, free of debt and interest.

The money we create should be shared equally with all citizens in the form of a UBI.

The total amount of money in the system should remain constant per citizen.

The money we create should be regenerative and simulate a circular flow.

When money changes hands, part of it should be lost to simulated entropy we call the basic expense.

The money that is lost to entropy should circulate back to its origin to create a closed system circular flow.

Instead of dividing the powers originally possessed by the monarch between three branches of government, we should divide them equally among all citizens. This means that every citizen would receive an equal share of legislative, executive and judicial power.

We can add both legislative and judicial power to our money by adding a vote and an evaluation to every unit of our money. This means that in addition to receiving a total of 200 units of money, we also receive 200 votes and 200 evaluations we can use to part take in decision-making and pass judgment on the projects we subscribe to.

In designing a better system, our decision-making in the future should follow the principles of delegative democracy, which elegantly combines the best attributes of representative, direct and deliberative democracy.

A cell’s votes should also be split up thematically. Depending on what is being decided on, the same votes can be delegated to different experts or representatives. Questions regarding a project’s finances can be delegated to person A, questions regarding technical issues to person B and questions regarding, say, public relations can be retained by the citizen themself, all at the same time.

The forums need to be created as a systematic grid of jurisdictions. One axis of the grid defines the geographic boundary of each jurisdiction, while the other axis defines the thematic boundary. Forums are created at the intersection of geographic and thematic jurisdictions.

By adopting a “global echo” decision-making protocol, we can coordinate global responses by starting the decisions locally at the neighborhood level, then pass them on to larger geographical entities. Once the decision reaches the planetary level, the globally agreed-on decision is then passed back down through the smaller geographical units until it reaches the neighborhood forum where the process started.

No decision should ever be final. Every decision, even ones with momentous consequences–or especially those–should be constantly open to re-evaluation and readjustment.

To enable better decision-making, big decisions should first be broken down into their constituent parts, which can then be indefinitely adjusted as facts change. This means that one big decision could actually consist of 10 or more smaller decisions, and only their cumulative result would determine the outcome of the big decision. This would allow for a more nuanced and responsive decision-making process.

The decisions we make should not be binary in nature. Citizens are also expected to accurately and responsibly calibrate their level of certainty and conviction on a given answer. All decisions should thus be made on a sliding yes/no scale from +100 to −100, with zero being neutral. +50 indicates a regular yes vote, +25 means that you are only half as certain, and +100 means you are absolutely certain. This means that by having absolute certainty you can double the weight of your vote.