Fundraising Strategy

The $2.5B Activation Energy - Comprehensive strategy for raising $1.2B-$2.5B through multi-phase approach targeting crypto whales, health billionaires, and major foundations
Abstract
By redirecting 1% of global military spending to hyper-efficient pragmatic clinical trials, humanity can achieve 514 years of medical research in 20 years and shift the cure of every disease forward by 8.2 years, saving 416 million lives and generating $1.2 quadrillion in value.
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

Fundraising Strategy: The $2.5B Activation Energy

On How to Raise $2.5B to Unlock $27B+/Year Forever

The capital required for a 1% treaty is not for ongoing operations. It’s “activation energy”, the one-time push to overcome political inertia and unlock $27+ billion annually for global health.

Think of it as a $2.5B vending machine that dispenses $27B per year. Forever.

The economics are stupidly obvious. The challenge is convincing people the vending machine is real.

Total Requirement: $1.2B - $2.5B over 36 months

Multi-Phase Strategy

Phase 1: Seed Round ($250M - $400M)

  • Build public engagement platform and policy frameworks for a potential referendum
  • Prove model in pilot countries
  • Milestone: 50M verified participants OR demonstrated public support for the treaty in a G20 nation

Phase 2: Series A ($500M - $1B)

  • Scale to all G7 nations
  • Achieve 3.5% global participation (280M people)
  • Milestone: 3.5% threshold OR first G7 government expresses intent to advance treaty discussions

Phase 3: Growth Round ($500M - $1.1B)

  • Foster conditions for ratification in major powers (US, EU, China) through public education and diplomatic engagement
  • Lay the groundwork for the future capitalization of your 1% Treaty Fund upon treaty ratification
  • Milestone: First $1B disbursement

Key Innovation: Nobody Gets Paid Unless It Works

All major costs are structured so people only get paid if they succeed:

  • Legal fees: Lawyers are incentivized by success-based compensation, which may include future government-issued VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds upon treaty ratification
  • Public awareness initiatives: Incentives for organizations achieving significant public engagement and support in countries advancing treaty discussions
  • Tech development: Bonuses for working code, not PowerPoints
  • Team compensation: Mostly equity because cash is for closers

Capital Structure: Campaign vs Implementation

Campaign cost (before treaty passes): ~$1B in VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds

Implementation (after treaty passes): $27B/year funds your dFDA, DIH infrastructure, pragmatic clinical trials, and other global health initiatives.

Why $1 Billion?

The campaign ($1B) is NOT building your dFDA - it’s getting people to vote for the treaty and lobbying governments to sign it. Your dFDA gets built AFTER the treaty passes using the $27B/year revenue.

Why this amount? To significantly exceed combined annual lobbying spend of:

  • Pharmaceutical industry: ~$300M/year
  • Military-industrial complex: ~$150M/year
  • Combined: ~$450M/year

Our advantage: We’re raising $1B ONCE (not annually) to pass a treaty that generates $27B/year FOREVER. They spend $450M/year to maintain the status quo. We just need to outspend them for 2-3 years to win permanently.

Campaign Budget Breakdown

Total: ~$1B (all VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds)

Lobbying Campaign (~$650M) - Outspend pharma + MIC combined:

  • Direct lobbying: US/EU/G20 governments ($350M - exceeds pharma’s $300M)
  • Super PAC campaigns ($150M)
  • Opposition research ($80M)
  • Staff and operations ($50M)
  • Legal/compliance (lobbying rules) ($20M)

Global Referendum (~$300M) - Get 208M people to vote for the treaty:

  • Advertising and media ($120M)
  • Social sharing and viral growth ($80M)
  • Partnerships with patient advocacy groups ($60M)
  • Staff and operations ($30M)
  • Legal/compliance (campaign finance) ($10M)

Reserve (~$50M) - Contingency buffer

Why VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds (Not Donations)?

Legal freedom: VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds can fund political lobbying without IRS 501(c)(3) restrictions. We can run Super PACs, fund opposition research, and outspend pharma/defense lobbies.

Investor alignment: Returns only pay if treaty passes - investors are incentivized to fund maximum lobbying power (not penny-pinch like foundations).

Speed: Can raise $1B in 12-24 months (like SPACs) vs. 10+ years for foundation grants (marriage equality took 11 years to raise $153M).

Flexible backfill: If we DO get donations for referendum activities, bonds can redirect more to lobbying. If donations are low, bonds cover everything.

Why This Works

For VICTORY investors:

  • Outspend the opposition by 2x ($1B vs $450M/year × 2 years = $900M)
  • 287% annual returns FOREVER if treaty passes
  • Legal freedom to lobby and run Super PACs
  • All-or-nothing bet with massive upside

The math:

  • Their side: $450M/year × 2 years = $900M (to maintain status quo)
  • Our side: $1B once (to pass treaty) → $27B/year forever
  • We win by outspending them $1B vs $900M over the campaign period

Post-Treaty Implementation ($27B/year)

Once the treaty passes, the $27B/year revenue stream funds:

  • Your decentralized framework for drug assessment development and operation
  • Infrastructure for your 1% Treaty Fund and decentralized institutes of health
  • Global clinical trial automation
  • Pragmatic clinical trials and other public health initiatives

This is NOT part of the $770M campaign budget. The campaign is just: get votes + pass treaty.

Nonprofit Compliance Checklist

For foundations/donors to feel comfortable funding:

✅ Separate entities: Nonprofit does not fund political lobbying ✅ Educational mission: Voter education about health policy (nonpartisan) ✅ No direct lobbying: Nonprofit spends <5% on lobbying (only policy research) ✅ No political campaigns: Zero political advertising or candidate support ✅ 501(c)(3) compliant: All activities stay within IRS rules ✅ Public benefit: Educational content serves public regardless of treaty outcome ✅ Transparent governance: Independent board, public reporting ✅ Tax-deductible: Donations are fully tax-deductible

Funding Model Comparison: What Actually Works

To understand realistic funding strategies, we examined historical evidence from similar large-scale campaigns. The data shows distinct patterns in how successful campaigns were funded and scaled:

Historical Evidence: How Similar Campaigns Were Funded

Campaign Total Raised Timeline Primary Sources Outcome Key Lesson
WW2 War Bonds $185B bonds issued 4 years 99% public bond purchases, <$4M campaign (ads donated) Victory + bonds repaid Contingent returns work at scale
Marriage Equality $153M 11 years 70% foundations, 20% mega-donors, 10% individual All 50 states legalized Foundation coalitions need proof first
Obamacare/ACA $47M (HCAN advocacy) 2 years Foundation coalition (Atlantic, SEIU) ACA passed Campaign cost << implementation cost
Marijuana (32 states) $139M 12 years Mix: billionaires, industry, foundations 32 states legalized State-by-state works but slow
Polio Eradication $2.9B 40 years 20 yrs grassroots ($500M) → Gates joined ($2B+) Near-eradication Mega-donors join AFTER proof
ICOs (2017-2018) $27.1B total 2 years Global crypto investors, retail speculation 90% failed, regulatory crackdown Fast money but high risk
SPACs (2020-2021) $245B 2 years Institutional investors, retail FOMO Most underperformed Fastest way to raise $100M-$1B
Litigation Finance $2B+ market cap (Burford) Ongoing Institutional investors seeking 20-40% returns Profitable industry Contingent models work for clear outcomes

The pattern: Advocacy campaigns cost $50M-$200M. Implementation is government-funded. Mega-donors join AFTER proof of concept.

Model A: Traditional Foundation Grants ($442M)

How it would work
  • Approach Gates, Wellcome Trust, Open Society, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
  • Pitch: “Fund a decentralized framework for drug assessment (dFDA) / Wishocracy platforms as civic infrastructure”
  • Timeline: 3-5 years of grant applications and pilot programs
  • Structure: 501(c)(3) nonprofit with restricted grants
Evidence
  • Largest foundation-funded advocacy: Marriage equality ($153M over 11 years)
  • Polio: $500M over 20 years before Gates joined with $2B
  • Charter schools: $1.8B over 30 years (Walton + Gates)
Pros
  • Tax-deductible donations
  • Mission-aligned with health foundations
  • Credibility with policymakers
  • No investor returns required
Cons
  • Too slow (11+ years for $153M)
  • $442M unrealistic for political campaign infrastructure
  • Foundations fund proven programs, not political campaigns
  • 501(c)(3) restrictions prohibit most campaign activities
  • Chicken-and-egg: need proof before funding, need funding for proof

Realistic assessment: Could raise $10-20M for pilots. Not $442M for campaign.

Verdict: ❌ Too slow, wrong tool for political campaign

Model B: VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds (Traditional Securities) ($500M-$1B)

How it would work
  • Issue registered securities offering 272% annual returns from treaty revenue
  • Target accredited investors, family offices, hedge funds
  • SEC-compliant offering (Reg D, Reg A+, or public offering)
  • Returns paid from treaty appropriations ($27.2B/year × 10% = $2.72B/year)
Evidence
  • SPACs raised $245B in 2020-2021 (average: $300M-$500M each)
  • High-yield bonds regularly raise $100M-$1B
  • Renaissance Technologies: 66% annual returns attracted $10B+ AUM
  • Investors chase extraordinary returns when credible
Pros
  • 270% returns beat any alternative investment
  • Clear exit strategy (treaty passes = perpetual income)
  • Regulatory clarity (traditional securities)
  • Institutional investors comfortable with structure
  • Can raise $500M-$1B if credible
Cons
  • SEC compliance expensive ($5M-$10M legal)
  • Accredited investor limits (until public offering)
  • 12-18 months for Reg A+ offering
  • All-or-nothing risk (treaty fails = total loss)
  • Need substantial traction before investors commit

Realistic assessment: Could raise $100M-$500M if pilots show proof of concept.

Verdict: ✅ Viable but needs proof first (Phase 2-3, not Phase 1)

Model C: Security Token Offering / Crypto ($100M-$500M)

How it would work
  • Tokenize VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds as security tokens
  • Trade on security token exchanges (tZERO, INX)
  • Smart contracts for automatic dividend distribution
  • Global investor access, faster liquidity
Evidence
  • 2017: $5.6B raised across 875 ICOs (average: $6.4M each)
  • 2018: $21.5B raised across 1,258 ICOs (average: $17M each)
  • Single projects: EOS ($4.1B), Telegram ($1.7B), Filecoin ($257M)
  • tZero: $134M security token offering (2018)
  • Current crypto winter: 90% down from peak, regulatory uncertainty
Pros
  • Can raise $100M+ in weeks (not years)
  • Global investor access (not just US accredited investors)
  • Programmable dividends via smart contracts
  • Secondary market liquidity from day one
  • Lower regulatory costs than traditional securities
Cons
  • Crypto winter: investors burned by scams
  • SEC treating most tokens as securities anyway
  • Reputational risk: association with failed ICOs
  • Technical risk: smart contract bugs, hacks
  • Volatile secondary market could undermine credibility

Realistic assessment: Could raise $50M-$200M from crypto whales if positioned as “inverse military-industrial complex” with 270% returns.

Verdict: 🟡 Fast but risky. Good for seed round ($10M-50M), dangerous at scale.

Model D: Litigation Finance / Contingency Model ($0 upfront)

How it would work
  • Legal/lobbying firms work on contingency
  • Get paid ONLY if treaty passes
  • Payment: 15-25% of first-year treaty revenue or VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds
  • Similar to tobacco settlement attorneys (paid $2.8B from $206B settlement)
Evidence
  • Tobacco Master Settlement: $0 upfront, attorneys got $2.8B (15% of $206B)
  • Burford Capital: $2B market cap funding lawsuits for 20-40% of winnings
  • Contingent lobbying exists but rare (usually success fees on top of retainer)
Pros
  • $0 upfront capital required
  • Lawyers/lobbyists highly motivated to win
  • Proven model in litigation finance
  • Aligns incentives perfectly
Cons
  • Requires clear legal claim (litigation) or regulatory outcome (lobbying)
  • Most top law firms won’t work pure contingency for political campaigns
  • Lobbying firms want upfront retainers
  • No precedent for pure contingency political campaigns

Realistic assessment: Can’t get $500M of lobbying on contingency. Maybe 20-40% contingency on top of $100M retainer.

Verdict: 🟡 Partial solution. Use contingent fees to reduce upfront costs, not eliminate them.

Model E: Defense Contractor Conversion (Most Realistic?)

How it would work
  • Pitch VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds directly to defense contractors
  • They already spend $150M/year on lobbying
  • Offer: Keep 99% of defense budget ($2.7T × 99% = $2.67T) PLUS earn 270% on the 1% redirected
  • They just redirect existing lobbying budget from “maximize defense spending” to “pass 1% treaty”
Evidence
  • Lockheed Martin lobbying: $13M/year
  • Boeing lobbying: $15M/year
  • Raytheon lobbying: $11M/year
  • Total defense lobbying: ~$150M/year
  • They get $1,813 back per $1 spent lobbying (proven ROI model)
Calculation
  • Current: Spend $150M lobbying → Get $750B contracts → 15% margins = $112B profit
  • New model: Spend $150M lobbying for treaty → Keep $2.67T defense budget (99%) + earn 272% on $27B health budget
  • Defense budget stays at $2.67T (barely changes)
  • They get NEW income stream: $27.2B × 10% = $2.72B/year to VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bondholders
  • Plus they can BUY VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds with their existing profits
Pros
  • They already have the lobbying infrastructure
  • They already spend $150M/year lobbying
  • Just redirect existing spend (no new fundraising needed)
  • They keep 99% of defense contracts
  • They ADD 270% returns on top of defense profits
  • Economically dominant strategy for them
Cons
  • Requires convincing defense CEOs to switch sides
  • Potential backlash from defense hawks
  • Complex coordination across multiple contractors
  • Might seem like “selling out” to shareholders

Realistic assessment: If we can convince 3-5 major defense contractors, they could self-fund the entire campaign from existing lobbying budgets.

Verdict: ✅✅ Most realistic. They’re already spending the money. We just need to redirect it.

Model F: Phased Hybrid Approach (Evidence-Based)

Based on what actually worked historically
Phase 1: Pilot ($10-20M, Years 1-2)
  • Source: Angel investors (tech billionaires, crypto whales)
  • Evidence: Every successful campaign started with small proof
  • Structure: SAFE notes or convertible debt
  • Use: Prove concept in 1-2 countries, demonstrate lives saved
  • Example: Like Rotary’s first $500M over 20 years for polio
Phase 2: Campaign ($100-200M, Years 3-5)
  • Source: VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds (traditional securities) + defense contractor conversion
  • Evidence: Marriage equality ($153M), Obamacare ($47M), SPACs ($300M average)
  • Structure: Reg A+ offering or private placement
  • Use: Global referendum, lobbying, tech platform scale-up
  • Target: Hedge funds, family offices, converted defense contractors
Phase 3: Implementation ($27B/year, Year 6+)
  • Source: Government appropriations (treaty signatories)
  • Evidence: PEPFAR ($15B/year federal), Paris Agreement (government commitments)
  • Structure: International treaty obligations
  • Use: Operations for your decentralized framework for drug assessment (dFDA) and a network of decentralized institutes of health (DIH)
  • Returns: VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bondholders get $2.72B/year (10% of $27.2B)

Total philanthropic need: $110-220M over 5 years (NOT $942M)

The Virtuous Cycle: Votes Drive Bond Sales

The ~$1B VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond campaign creates a self-reinforcing cycle:

The Cycle
  1. Sell VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds → Fund referendum ads and lobbying
  2. Get votes → Generate attention and legitimacy (1M → 100M → 208M votes)
  3. Attention + votes → Makes treaty passage more likely → Easier to sell more bonds
  4. More bond sales → More lobbying firepower + more referendum ads
  5. More votes → More attention → Higher treaty passage probability → Easier to sell bonds
  6. Repeat until we raise $1B and pass the treaty

Funding source: 100% VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds ($1B total)

Why only bonds (not donations)?
  • Speed: Can raise $1B in 12-24 months (vs 10+ years for donations)
  • Legal freedom: Can fund political lobbying, Super PACs, opposition research
  • Investor alignment: Returns only pay if treaty passes - incentivizes maximum spending to win
  • Flexibility: If we DO get donations, bonds can redirect more to lobbying

Optional donations (bonus, not required):

  • Any donations we receive can fund referendum education (501(c)(3) compliant)
  • But we’re not COUNTING on donations - bonds cover everything
  • Historical comparison: Marriage equality raised $153M over 11 years. We’re raising $1B in 1-2 years via bonds.
Timeline milestones
  • 1M votes: Prove the model works → Easier to sell Series A bonds
  • 100M votes: Demonstrate massive political will → Easier to sell Series B bonds
  • 208M votes + $1B raised: Treaty passage threshold

Post-treaty: $27B/year funds the implementation of your decentralized framework for drug assessment, infrastructure for decentralized institutes of health, and pragmatic clinical trials.

Hybrid Communication Strategy: Simple Targets, Sophisticated Mechanics

The Marketing Message (The “Hook”)

For marketing and high-level communications, lead with a simple, audacious target:

“The model targets returns superior to the world’s most elite hedge funds (~272% annualized). The financial model is governed by a simple principle: investor payouts never exceed 50% of income, guaranteeing the mission is always protected.”

The Backend Engine (Market-Driven Pricing)

For sophisticated investors, use efficient market mechanisms:

  • Dutch Auctions for public funding tranches
  • Market-based price discovery for optimal capital efficiency
  • Smart contract escrows with automated refunds

De-Risking with Assurance Contracts

The primary risk elimination mechanism:

  • Smart Contract Escrow: All funds locked until funding goals met
  • Automatic Refunds: If targets missed, money returns automatically
  • No Collective Action Problem: “Money-back guarantee” eliminates investment risk
  • Dominant Assurance Contract: Bonus rewards if goals achieved

Whale & Billionaire Targeting Strategy

Why Target Whales

Speed vs. Scale Trade-off
  • 1 meeting → $50M check vs. 50,000 meetings → $50M in small checks
  • 6-12 months vs. 18+ months timeline
  • Lower legal complexity with fewer investors
Unit Economics Advantage
  • Higher success probability with mission-aligned billionaires
  • Larger check sizes ($10-100M vs. $1-10K)

Target Categories & Prospects

Category 1: Crypto Whales & Protocol Treasuries ($500M-1B potential)

Individual Crypto Billionaires
  • Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum) - Mission-aligned, understands governance
  • Brian Armstrong (Coinbase) - Health tech investor
  • Changpeng Zhao (Binance) - Global reach, massive liquidity
Protocol Treasuries (DAO-to-DAO)
  • Uniswap Labs ($4B+ treasury) - Understands DAO governance
  • MakerDAO ($8B+ treasury) - Health-aligned investing
  • Compound Treasury - DeFi protocol experience

Category 2: Health & Pharma Billionaires ($750M-1.5B potential)

Pharma Executives
  • Albert Bourla (Pfizer CEO) - Would get 2-5X more R&D funding
  • Pascal Soriot (AstraZeneca CEO) - Global operations
  • Emma Walmsley (GSK) - Vaccine/global health focus
Health Tech Billionaires
  • Patrick Soon-Shiong (NantHealth, $7B) - Cancer research focus
  • Anne Wojcicki (23andMe) - Genomics, patient data

Category 3: Mission-Aligned Mega-Foundations ($500M-1B potential)

Health-Focused Foundations
  • Gates Foundation ($70B endowment) - Global health mandate
  • Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ($45B) - Science/health focus
  • Wellcome Trust ($38B) - Medical research
Effective Altruism & Longevity
  • Open Philanthropy (Dustin Moskovitz) - EA cause prioritization
  • Schmidt Futures (Eric Schmidt) - Technology + health

Outreach Templates

Template 1: Crypto Whales (Governance Angle)

Subject: Invitation to influence governance of $27.2B health treasury (Bitcoin-level impact)

“The initiative advocates for the creation of a 1% Treaty Fund (a $27.2B annually decentralized treasury) using proven DAO models from MakerDAO/Uniswap. We advocate for a governance model where future government-issued VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bond holders, alongside public health experts, provide input on the allocation of this treasury across pragmatic clinical trials and other global health initiatives.

This isn’t just an investment - it’s a chance to influence the direction of more capital than the NIH budget toward curing diseases through 80X more efficient decentralized trials.”

Template 2: Health Billionaires (Industry Advantage)

Subject: 2-5X your R&D budget (backed by government treaties)

“A 1% treaty redirects 1% of global military spending ($27.2B annually) into health research using Oxford RECOVERY trial methods (80X lower cost). Early supporters will be instrumental in shaping the policy recommendations for treasury allocation.

For [Company], this means 2-5X more R&D funding for the same work you’re already doing, plus the opportunity to influence priority areas.”

Template 3: Foundations (Mission Multiplication)

Subject: 10X your health impact without additional donations

“Your $50M investment would empower [Foundation] to significantly influence the policy recommendations for the allocation of $2.7B annually - 54X leverage on your committed capital, in perpetuity.

This uses the same proven model that created $7T in fossil fuel subsidies, but directed toward saving lives.”

Detailed Budget Breakdown

Phase 1: Seed ($250M - $400M)

Category Lower Bound Upper Bound Justification
Operations (Core Team) $10M $15M Lean founding team (15-20 people) with VICTORY tokens
Platform & Tech MVP $50M $75M Engineering costs with 50.0% cash / 50.0% token split
Legal & Framework (Pilots) $40M $60M Top-tier law firms with success fees tied to the creation of future government-issued VICTORY Incentive Alignment Bonds upon treaty ratification
Pilot Public Engagement & Policy Education $100M $150M Competitive prize for organizations demonstrating the most effective public engagement and policy education leading to increased public support
Referendum Points System $5M $10M Infrastructure for non-financial incentives
Contingency $45M $90M 20-30% buffer for high-uncertainty policy initiative

Phase 2: Series A ($500M - $1B)

Category Lower Bound Upper Bound Pay-for-Success Model
Scaled Public Engagement & Policy Education $300M $600M Competitive Prize Ecosystem: $100M, $50M, $25M prizes for achieving significant public awareness and support thresholds
Strategic Industry Engagement $50M $100M Performance-based incentives for collaborative partnerships with relevant industries
Platform Scale-Up $100M $150M Scale to 300M+ users with performance bonuses
Global Legal Expansion $40M $80M Success-fee-based retainers in all target nations
Contingency $10M $70M Operational buffer for scaled global initiative

Phase 3: Growth Round ($500M - $1.1B)

Category Lower Bound Upper Bound Success-Based Structure
Global Public Education Initiatives $300M $750M Competitive prize model for organizations achieving significant public and policy maker engagement in nations yet to fully embrace the treaty
Industry Collaboration (Final Tranche) $50M $100M Entirely success-based incentives for corporate collaboration to support treaty implementation
Treasury & Governance Launch $100M $150M Developer bonuses tied to a flawless policy recommendation framework and technical launch for your 1% Treaty Fund
Contingency $50M $100M Final buffer for most critical policy advancement phase

Bottom-Up Budget Justification

Operations Budget

  • 20-person team at $250k/year fully-loaded cost
  • 2-year runway for seed phase
  • Heavy equity/token compensation to align incentives

Platform Development

  • 50-person engineering team/contractor budget
  • 3 independent security audits ($5M)
  • Global cloud infrastructure ($10M)
  • Compliance features (GDPR, etc.)

Public Engagement & Policy Education Initiatives

  • Public education and civic engagement initiatives replicated in 2 key pilot regions for Phase 1
  • Scaled to 5-10 G7 nations for Phase 2 public awareness initiatives
  • Prize model creates competitive dynamics for achieving public engagement milestones

Execution Timeline

Month 1-2: List Building & Warm Intros

  • Finalize top 100 target list with contact information
  • Secure warm introductions through mutual connections
  • Prepare legal structures for different investor types

Month 3-4: Direct Outreach Wave 1 (Top 25 targets)

  • Send personalized outreach to highest-probability targets
  • Target: 5-10 serious conversations, 2-3 term sheets

Month 5-6: Closing Wave 1 ($150-300M)

  • Close first 3-5 major investors
  • Use social proof from Wave 1 for Wave 2 outreach
  • Target: $150-300M closed

Month 7-9: Outreach Wave 2 (Next 50 targets)

  • Leverage Wave 1 investors for introductions
  • Target: 8-12 serious conversations, 5-8 term sheets

Month 10-12: Closing Wave 2 ($400M-1B)

  • Close remaining funding to reach $500M-1.3B total
  • Target: Total raise of $1-2.5B

Success Metrics

  • Month 3: 25 outreach attempts, 10 meetings scheduled
  • Month 6: $250M committed, 5 investors closed
  • Month 9: $500M committed, 10 investors closed
  • Month 12: $1B+ committed, 15+ investors closed

Risk Mitigation

Regulatory Risk

  • Use established legal structures (SAFTs, convertibles)
  • Engage top-tier securities lawyers from day one
  • Structure as utility tokens, not investment contracts

Market Risk

  • Focus on mission-aligned investors, not pure profit seekers
  • Create vesting schedules to prevent quick flips
  • Build in treasury protections against volatility

Execution Risk

  • Over-recruit targets (100 targets for 20 closes)
  • Multiple legal structures for different preferences
  • Clear milestones with investor updates

The Economic Reality

This isn’t traditional fundraising; it’s strategic policy activation. The approach is inspired by the effectiveness of robust public and diplomatic engagement in shaping policy, where focused efforts can unlock significant societal benefits, similar to how focused advocacy in other sectors can lead to substantial economic shifts.

The twist: offer them an even better deal to fund cures instead of wars.

The math is simple:

  • Investment: $1.2-2.5B once
  • Return: $27.2B+ annually in perpetuity
  • ROI: 10-20x political arbitrage + 463x economic arbitrage via your decentralized framework for drug assessment (dFDA)

This phased approach ensures capital efficiency while maximizing probability of success through aligned incentives and competitive dynamics.

Reuse