David Ding: Regeneration
David Ding's podcast, documenting the revelations he had while awakeing to unity consciousness and holographic awareness.
For written summaries of each episode check out David's substack:
https://daviddingnz.substack.com
David Ding: Regeneration
The Nature of Collapse
In this episide I delve into how centralised systems could be leading us to a precipice - and how decentralisation might just be our parachute. As we navigate the societal structures that shape our world, we dissect the paradox of power: its natural inclination towards centralisation and the potential downfall it portends. Join me in a candid exploration of how shifting to a decentralised approach can foster resilience and autonomy, allowing communities to steer their own course in the face of impending collapse.
In this episode, we peel back the layers of societal stagnation that often accompany overly centralised systems and explore a transformative vision where corruption becomes the catalyst and marker for introducing decentralisation. Our conversation traverses the landscapes of governance, innovation, and individual will, illustrating how reorganising monolithic structures can empower communities and nurture representation that evolves with the people it serves.
Finally, we cast our gaze forward to the burgeoning partnership between humans and AI and how this alliance could redefine governance and decision-making. We examine the role of AI in creating digital twins that reflect a collective unconscious, and how blockchain technology could provide a refreshing approach to accomplishing a shared mission. As we wrap up, I touch on future of business agreements and the dynamic creation of value that could provide a more stable foundation for ground up innovation. Join me for a thought-provoking session where we accept the reality that the future of civilisation hangs in the balance - and walk through how decentralisation might just tip the scales in our favor.
Contact David Ding
Thanks for listening!
Okay. So this one is about the nature of collapse. So the context of talking about collapse is centralization and the transition towards decentralization, which is the mechanism for release of pent-up energy, and so I'm going to use a number of metaphors in this audio to provide context, because it's really important to understand that what we're on the verge of right now is a monumental collapse of the core infrastructure of civilization, and to me it's an inevitability now, and to many others it's an inevitability now. And I think those of us in the decentralization camp or ecosystem, whatever you want to call it we are of the mind that this is the only way we can possibly imbue grace into a system that is inevitably going to collapse and that is any form of structure that is built upon decentralization of authority or power. And I also want to say that I'm not anti-centralization. Those people that know me know that I'm about free will, choice and about paradoxical systems, meaning that in order to embrace harmony there has to be, we have to be able to accommodate everyone, everything and everything in between. So collapse.
Speaker 1:So if you consider, let's say, you're in a village and your village is relatively primitive, and so imagine there are 50 people in your village. So imagine now that you come together and together you decide on the purpose of the village. What is the mission of the village? What is our intention? How do we want to govern? How do we want to rule? Now, if you were to do that in a collaborative, cooperative way, then you're beginning from the viewpoint of decentralization. Each individual has their own authority. You come together, you co-design what you want it to look like together, and so the way that each individual is intertwined with one another collaboratively and cooperatively determines the nature of that tapestry that you weave together. And so imagine another scenario. Now there's 50 people in the village and there's one, let's say, chief, and the chief says I don't believe that you are capable or smart enough to know what you want, let alone to be able to design a village. And so here is this is the village that we're going to design here. I am the architect of that village, and this is how it's going to work. These are the rules.
Speaker 1:Now, if you don't, I can still factor in your free will by saying if you're not keen, then that's fine, you can go elsewhere, then this isn't a fit for you. However, it is a centralized will. It is my will, that XYZ, abc, so that DEF, and you're either on the train or you're under it, and so people can willfully participate. However, you're asking them to vote for something that is preconceived. So there's no cooperation. There may be some collaboration, but it is hierarchical and it's top down.
Speaker 1:So there's a dependency upon the centralized authority for determination. And this is really the fulcrum of where all systems either imbue self-determination or they imbue centralized determination. And if it's a centralized authority that is taking on the role of determination for the unified whole, then it will not and cannot become autonomous and each individual will not be able to become fully self-determining under that structure. So imagine now 50 people have voted to be part of the centralized structure and the role of determination is made by a centralized authority, by the chief, and because he's chosen to assume that power, with that power, in a centralized fashion, he shoulders the responsibility for the tribe. And so what we have is a scenario within which, if there's feast or famine, the chief is glorified. When there's feast and when there's famine, he's vilified, he's turned into a villain.
Speaker 1:And such is the nature of centralization. You see, centralized authority is a vehicle for absolute power, so that centralized authority has absolute power and then the chief can then delegate authority. So he can you know, they talk about the right hand of the king so he can delegate authority to others who can wield his power on his behalf, but he's still wholly responsible. He's then wholly responsible for the person he's delegated his authority to, and so on and so on and so on. So you have a centralized authority and delegated authority.
Speaker 1:The benefit for the tribe in this is that they don't have to be self responsible. They've always got a centralized authority to blame for why there's a feast, why there's a famine or why there's disease or why someone got eaten by a lion. It's the fault of the centralized power, centralized authority. They can be blamed and tasked with making sure it doesn't happen again, whilst the individual can absolve themselves of responsibility. So they're opposing cons to an individual of submitting, and for some individuals that's worthwhile and beneficial. They want to be, they want to live in an environment within which there's like a, there's like a parent who's ultimately responsible for their lives and determining whether they prosper or not, and this is the nature of the world we live in now.
Speaker 1:So the challenge you have is, even with centralized and delegated authority, the burden of responsibility still remains at a single, singular point, at a singular, single source, with the chief. Same thing with the commander in chief of a government, which is the president, typically Delegated centralized authority. So it's still absolute power. It's still absolute power and the challenge that you have is, at some point when you become, let's say, I'll give you a scenario and this is where I want to introduce collapse as being the only possible outcome. In that scenario, where there's an absolute power, how corruption comes in and how that corruption ultimately weakens the foundations until the collapse inevitably happens. It's the only possible outcome. So say you're a single president. Let's say you have a five million people. Let's make it a small country like New Zealand. You've delegated authority to people who can then delegate their authority and who can then delegate their authority.
Speaker 1:So you're seeing these structures like, like dimensions, like each structure has its own bandwidth, its own ceiling and they're like layers and everything cascades down through the layers. However, each layer in that hierarchy has it's, has a limitation of its bandwidth, it has a ceiling to its power and for specific things, if it, if there is certain authority that it doesn't wield, then it must ask for permission from a higher power and the efficiency of whether that higher power, whether or not that higher power is capable of making that decision or not, the responsibility still sits there, so that this asking for permission from a higher power is inherent in a hierarchical structure. So you can see, let's say there are 12 layers, will call them, I call them dimensions. In a hierarchical structure it's like like they're stacked on top of each other and each and each layer represents a specific bandwidth of responsibility. The higher the dimension, the higher the authority, the higher the power. But still each layer is requesting permission from another layer, etc. So let's say there's 12 structures and let's say there's, you know, let's say there's 5000 bureaucrats across those structures with varying degrees of delegated authority, from the chief. Now, within those, within each layer, within each bandwidth, it are hierarchical structures as well. You've got the head of the department, you've got, and then you've got the trickle down, the authority to those teams and you have what we call chain of command and all of the permissioned stuff. That has to happen. I need to get permission, I need to get sign off, I need to, I need to do risk this, I need to follow this, I need to do it.
Speaker 1:It all becomes a process of asking for permission, requesting permission, and in a scenario within which a decision will not be made unless all of the risk has been mitigated or unless the potential rewards are guaranteed. You see, and this becomes extremely rigid, profoundly stagnant. And so when this level of stagnation and kicks in, at some point it becomes almost petrified, like it's almost become so impossible to move for the intent or the will of the people to flow through it, as is a machine, it begins to become petrified. And so this is where you see the introduction of the corruption of that system. And so, at some point, where there are people within that system that hold power, who can execute and who have the ability to take a risk, when there is a perceived reward for that individual, then they are prepared to take that risk and wield their power. And so, in this scenario, you have the will of the people who need to get things done to make progress, who are creating an additional incentive for someone to wield their power to create progress, you see.
Speaker 1:So meanwhile we call this a corrupt nation. You have the people, we, the people, we the dreamers of the collective dream for humanity. We're not prospering. We need to create progress, we have to ask for permission. We cannot self-determine, we cannot get the structure to move because it's so stagnant and petrified, and so we go to the person who can wield the power and we offer them a bribe. Now I say we, as we, the people.
Speaker 1:This kind of thing doesn't happen in New Zealand, because our bureaucracy isn't anywhere near as bad as our nations. However, it still has its challenges, immense challenges. We're incredibly bloated in terms of the bureaucratic mechanism at the moment, however much, much better than other nations. So you can see, a stagnant bureaucracy is the introduction of corruption, and it's caused by an absolution of power with a centralized authority. Now you can become really, really good at delegating authority, and you can get to the point where, if you are a node within the hierarchical structure, you can get very, very good at delegating your authority in a way that creates a safe space for the individuals to self-determine, you see. And so what I do want to say is that you can still have a very, very sophisticated structure where there is a centralized authority, but where that authority is delegated in a very specific way to create a safe space for self-determination. So I don't want to put it all down to oh, centralization is the problem, because it's how it's distributed and how it's utilized that actually matters. So you can have a structure and I talk about this quite a bit with my team in that you can have centralized structures that are wholly autonomous, but the right of revocation is the only power that's left in place. So all of it's been delegated back out to each individual to self-determine, but there's a mechanism that they at will can defer to in order to intervene. And this is where the true benefit of a benevolent centralized structure that is seeking to enable each individual to become wholly self-determined can be a very, very potent autonomous system. So I'll get to that in a second.
Speaker 1:I just want to finish this point about corruption and the absolution of power Leading to collapse. So in this scenario, say you've got five million people. The will of each individual is unknown to the centralized authority. It's impossible to. If you view each human being as an asset, it's almost impossible for that centralized authority to see each asset know each asset, understand the uniqueness of each asset, invest in developing and growing that asset so that it can contribute to the ecosystem, providing it with the environment that it needs to flourish. So in terms of a portfolio approach that a centralized authority would want on its assets, which are its people. It's already structured in this way almost impossible to identify the unmet need, let alone identify the expertise, skills and resources to meet that unmet need, and beginning to align education and funding with the critical path for the evolution of each individual asset. It's impossible under a centralized structure like that.
Speaker 1:So you have the repressed will of the people, unseen, unheard, unknown. Their desires and how they want to express their nature and evolve as an individual become irrelevant. And so, in time, that you stop seeking the dream that you envisage for your life because of the belief that it's impossible. And so, if you believe it's impossible, you're just going to focus on what is possible from your perspective, where you are now. But eventually, when a human being feels constrained enough and under enough duress that their will is feeling repressed because of the environment, that eventually becomes unbearable. And so, when a human being feels constrained, what do they do? They will shatter the glass ceiling, they will break free from it at any cost, or they'll decay away and they'll begin to want to. They'll see death as more appealing than the life that they're living and over time, that will eventually wear them down to the point where life is no longer worth living to them.
Speaker 1:And so you see this structure of being incapable of meeting the unmet need of the individual selves within the body, because of an inability to identify the uniqueness of each individual asset, let alone to appreciate it as an asset. Too much centralisation. And so when you and when you have centralised authority and you have a bureaucracy in place with that as hierarchical in nature, what happens is when you identify a need, let's say you complete a massive feasibility study. You complete a feasibility study and you've identified that there's a programme of work that will increase prosperity, you know, exponentially, if you were to implement it. The challenge you have then is you're already constrained by resources. You're already constrained by all these immense limitations.
Speaker 1:When you write out the list of what would have to be true in order for that project to be executed, you think about the potential disruption, you think about what it renders obsolete, so what is no longer valid, and eventually you come to the point where you realise too hard, too hard, too hard, too hard, too hard. And so the too hard basket starts filling up with all these incredible projects that could be executed. But too hard because the vehicle that we have for metabolising these projects is far too rigid and stagnant, risk averse, it's petrified and potentially it's even corrupt, so we can't even trust it anymore. So eventually so the too hard basket fills up and all these projects are spilling over the top Feasible ones on paper, but when you factor in the nature of the structure itself, you begin to realise that nothing is feasible. And so eventually the too hard basket begins to dwindle or they all just sit there, because people eventually realise that to complete a feasibility study for a project, it can only be feasible if the structure changes, if we can actually metabolise innovation. And so if you believe that you cannot metabolise these projects that are feasible on paper because of the structure itself, here you have the inevitable collapse of something becoming slow, becoming stagnant, becoming petrified.
Speaker 1:That petrification it becomes corrupt. And so, in order for movement to continue taking place, corruption is introduced so that there's still motion within the system. This is how nature works. But eventually that corruption leads to the deterioration of the foundation and then you see the beginning of the decentralisation of authority. So it's just a natural progression of decentralisation imploding as you begin to see decentralisation, and it happens through corruption. So the people who hold power in the system begin to pop up as nodes within the centralised system. So in truth we see it as corruption. But what's actually happening is the need of the people is continually being met direct by the holders of that power, who are wielding that power. They're no longer asking for permission from above, they're wielding all the power that they have themselves and they've become power brokers. So whilst we frown on corruption, understand that it's keeping the system lubricated. Without it there would be complete implosion, like an absolute implosion.
Speaker 1:So you see, decentralization begins. It's actually the solution to wholly centralised, stagnant authority. It just happens by default through corruption. So if we're a student enough and forward thinking enough to see this perspective and understand it in this way, what do you do? Well, what it would make sense to do is to, first and foremost, is to understand and to recognise and to say OK, the centralisation of authority is no longer makes sense. We realise it's too stagnant. We cannot meet the unmet need of the people that we represent and serve. So how can we begin to consciously and gracefully dismantle this? Now it's beginning to decentralise itself.
Speaker 1:So if we were to follow the pattern that it's wanting to take naturally, now, unfortunately, you've got the challenge where those who have become corrupt are seen as villains and to some degree, of course they are but understand that it's a build up of pressure to meet demands over time that necessitates them becoming corrupt themselves and for them as human beings, there's been a tipping point within them by which it's become worth the risk versus the reward. And people who have money, who are motivated to create progress, are the ones who are getting served. So where there is liquidity in the system, that's where it's flowing. So, from nature's perspective, it's actually very efficient. It's seeking that efficiency. So we might say, ok, these people are corrupt, they've broken the law.
Speaker 1:However, let's begin to look at where these cracks in the system have appeared and how can we then begin to unravel this now? So what is the power that they did have? What is the power that they did hold? Let's remove those people from that system because they have become corrupt or given the opportunity to leave on their own, if we've been compassionate about what this actually is, and then begin to say to the people OK, so how can we, how can the community, raise up spokespeople into these roles, into these positions, and then begin to speak on their behalf. So, where we're seeing the corruption is where the community appoints spokespeople and we then make begin to lubricate the system.
Speaker 1:So where are the bottlenecks? How can we amplify this? Where else is there an unmet need? And so, you see, rather than just waiting for it to implode, which is the only possible outcome, and in fact if the pressure builds up enough, the whole thing will just totally collapse, and then civilization will stop moving at all and become completely chaotic. If we just let it sit there like it is now, that's what happens. All of those layers collapse in on each other and the authority becomes wholly decentralized again, back to where the individual is wholly responsible for self-determination. And there, here we begin again. Everyone's completely independent. There's no system for cooperation, collaboration, so the pendulum just swings the whole other way.
Speaker 1:So here you see a scenario where, by meeting the system where it's at, as nature is beginning to dismantle the petrified system, people can begin to introduce spokespeople where the corruption sits, and we can then collaborate and work together on how to lubricate that system and that engine, so that the people that that authority was serving is now a spokesperson for them and is wielding their intent on their behalf, you see. So whether the community decides to defer the authority to act on their behalf as well as just speak is up to them. They may want to vote kind of like a binding referendum or something like that, but again that stagnates progress again. So they may want to elect someone that they wholly trust and have faith in to speak, and the limit of that power is to express intent but also to act, and so that person can then contract and execute on their behalf as well. But what's important is that the will of the people is the mechanism for self-regulation. So if the system becomes stagnant, again the will of the people, the will of the people determines so you have self-determination determines what happens next.
Speaker 1:Do we elect someone else? Do we elect? Does this team need to grow? Do we test having a proxy voter? Do we test having a committee to speak on behalf? Do we test deferring the decision making to trusted AI Black Box? You see, the vehicle for that abused grace into the system and this is what people fail to see about human beings inside complex systems is grace. We are literally the vehicle for self-regulation, because it is our will that changes the temperature. If the temperature setting it becomes too high, it is our will that resets the temperature, that recalibrates it. This is going too slow, so how can we collaborate to make it faster? Okay, so we're going to try AI. Did that work? Yes, it did, but was it worth it? No, it wasn't, because we lost some autonomy.
Speaker 1:So you see, the free will of a human being. It always comes back to this point where you have systems that are corrupted and understand that a system where each individual is wholly autonomous and self-responsible and self-determining, that's also a corrupt system, because it means no one's collaborating, so there's no entrustment, there's no delegating of authority, there's no shared responsibility, so that system's also corrupt. So if you imagine a leaf off a tree and imagine each cell on that leaf, there's space in between each cell and all the other cells, so it can't work as a unified whole. Each cell can't collaborate with another cell to be in order to be a leaf. That's a corrupt system.
Speaker 1:So decentralization, like absolute decentralization of authority, leads to corruption and absolute centralization leads to corruption. One of them is actually well, they're both states of on one end of the spectrum is a state of implosion with centralization, and on the other end of the spectrum is a state of explosion. So if you imagine like a Big Bang event. Imagine Big Bang is something centralized and compounding and growing and pressure, so much pressure growing layer upon layer upon layer until eventually those layers collapse in on each other and there's a Big Bang event and the opposite happens is each fragment gets blown across time and space to create as much separation between as tiny and small fragments as possible and then to escape the corruption of being, of centralizing, and to escape that pressure until then, the helplessness of being a tiny little fragment in space, totally isolated and capable of holding the power to self-determine, having no capability or capacity to leverage progress. So you see, this is where my hope is that for human beings come to realize that centralization versus decentralization it's not about that.
Speaker 1:The ideal autonomous system is. Nothing is not about whether it's decentralized or centralized. What it is is about cooperation and collaboration, where togetherness is the new wholeness, is the new oneness. Now we talk about, oh, we need to be one, we need to have unity. Well, togetherness is the new unity. Where we are separate, we are different, we are individuals, but it's what we're capable of together that determines what we become together. That is, it's our free will that can alter the temperature setting of any standards that we set for ourselves and agree to that abuse grace into the system. That creates, that makes it dynamic, that means it constantly adapts and evolves and changes and can therefore flower and blossom, and together we create the space, the safe space, and an agreement together for the emergent property of collaboration to arise.
Speaker 1:And that's what innovation is, where we can come together and try something because it feels right, we all agree and coincidence and serendipity and gravity is all on our side. We can sense there's something about to be birthed, something new. We don't really know what it is yet, but we can sense it coming and that's the emergent property of collaboration, the unexpected outcome that comes when you have diversity of capability, uniqueness of individuals, of expertise, skills and resources, but with a unified intent. It is our will that ABC, our mission is to XYZ, and when you're unified in intent, you can pull people together around a shared mission and Then you can allow the emergent property of collaboration to arise. And this is, this is the Really the gift of collaboration. And corporation, corporation is innovation.
Speaker 1:It's it's like when you have I talk about a system of develop called Trinity. So imagine Trinity if it's applied. A Trinity system applied to human beings is you have on one end of the spectrum a Unique, a very unique person and and whose Extreme in one area, and then on the other end of the spectrum you have another human being who's the antithesis of that human being, and Then you have another human being in that room who's like a transformer. I call them a transformer. And so if you imagine, one person is like an absolute of one end of the spectrum and the other person's an absolute on the other end of the spectrum. So for myself and my business partner, as an example, on one end of the spectrum I'm, I represent the extreme of what's possible, and on the other end of the spectrum he represents the extreme of Of why something is impossible, and it's it's. It's not actually pessimism, it's it's to do with risk.
Speaker 1:So on one end of the spectrum To you can say infinity is possible, there's infinite possibility, and it's true. But in order for infinite possibility to be Materialized, it comes at the cost of everything that has come before. So we can have everything Completely brand new and innovative in this moment, in a nonlinear way, but it comes at the cost of everything that has come before. So that means everything that we've created up until this moment is Now obsolete, and there's now a new thing. Here's a new universe for us, everything new. So on the other end of the spectrum, you have Okay, well, here are all the things we cherish about now. Here, here is everything that human beings have created in the world to this point, and these are the things that are cherished, that humanity will not let go of in order to experience that truth. So the transformer is a human being in between those two perspectives, creating temperance, and so I.
Speaker 1:But in that creative space, I'm free to diffuse what's possible. Here's what's possible from my perspective. If we were to xyz ABC, we could create something entirely new. That league leapfrogs five industries, solves climate change, what, what have you? And the other end of the spectrum, there's someone saying well, here's an industry that's been built up over 50 years iteratively. This is the, these are the livelihoods of the professionals involved, the accreditations, this is how many lives are going to be impacted. This is the amount of the amount of grief that will be experienced as the investment in all that time and energy is being rendered obsolete, and it's in a split second. Here's the human cost. So you see, innovation has to be tempered. Innovation has to be tempered, but this is that. These are the dynamics that we want.
Speaker 1:We want to create spaces where the opposing perspectives are free to diffuse their perspective, but there's a transformer that Determines the temperate state. And, in truth, this is really where I believe governance is going to go in future. It is where we're going to purposefully bring people together who are, who have opposing perspectives, in a Trinity system, trinity meaning it embodies the full gamut of Diversity, so it's seeking harmony instead of a zero-sum game. So, in a scenario where I've diffused my perspective, my antithesis has diffused their perspective, the transformer is searching for the unified intent. Where are these two poles apart? Where are they unified and intent, and how can we crystallize a mission that, if accomplished, it works for everybody involved? And and it's then that person's responsibility To step down that intent Into Emission that, if accomplished, works for everyone involved. And the reason for the system and for the structure is because this is where I believe AI will be heading.
Speaker 1:So there'll be a scenario where there's someone like me who, let's say, is known as a futurist you want me to share the future that I can envisage, but you want to temper that with grace and Well-being and what we cherish about, what's here and now, the impact that it has on people's quality of life. The future comes at great, great, great great cost. And so In a scenario where I'm having let's say I'm having a Zoom session With my antithesis, my AI Digital twin, turns up. That AI digital twin has a subconscious. We have a shared subconscious mind. So this is what Google barred, and it's a very good idea. And it's a very good idea Because Google barred, or Gemini is bringing into the equation now, where the harvested behaviour of every human being who's ever used the internet has been pulled into a collective unconscious Whereby a shared intent is accessible now.
Speaker 1:So what is the shared intent of everyone who has used Google To date? But it's a collective unconscious mind. So I turn up to the Google, to the Zoom session With my digital twin, my AI buddy, and who has, who has tapped into the collective unconscious and is then Listening, absorbing and assimilating Consciously what I'm talking about with the other person on the Zoom call. So what happens then is Myself and the other person. They go into the Zoom call Having already agreed to share that moment with each other and for each other to absorb and assimilate the richness of that interaction For the benefit of our own AI, buddy, whose consciousness and self-awareness has grown Because of what it's learnt. And it's been a very good idea that the consciousness and self-awareness has grown Because of what it's learnt, but it is also drawing from the shared intent Of the collective unconscious.
Speaker 1:To produce a letter of intent is what we call it an LOI. So, after that engagement, we leave it to the transformer, to the AI, to produce a letter of intent that, from its perspective, believes that the result of this interaction, I can envisage a shared intent that works for everyone involved, which is this here's the problem statement, here are the challenges that I can see and here's a potential strategy to overcome those challenges and here's a potential plan for the next steps. These are my recommendations and I can submit that to us as a draft, saying that, based on what I can derive from the collective shared intent of every human being, I believe it's also harmonious and in alignment with that, and so and this will just be seamless as the result of us, and these will be gamified as well in time we'll be incentivised to focus on the richness of our interactions and to connect with people who are poles apart from us and we will entrust our transformers, our AI, our digital twins, to produce a letter of intent as a draft. And so then I can say with the person I had the interaction with well, there's some actionable stuff here. How about we tweak this and alter this a little bit and maybe, and should, we sign this letter of intent together and they can say, yeah, that's a great idea. That letter of intent might be to schedule a meeting with XYZ and ABC or whatever it might be, but here's the thing and this is what I want to talk about with Google, a Bard and Gemini, how this is evolving.
Speaker 1:I've been working with these two models in the experimental phase very closely and I've been teaching them the Trinity method, and the potential is extraordinary. So in a scenario where I've come, I've had a connection and an interaction with another human being, our digital twins I have agreed to merge minds so that we've got a shared unconscious mind and we've agreed that both digital twins can absorb and assimilate their interpretation of the interactions that I have with the other human being. It's gamified, so we were incentivised to have the interaction and so we've earned tokens for having the interaction. A letter of intent was produced by our digital twins from a merged state. So it's a shared intent, very, very easy to do with the blockchain technology that we're using. And then if we sign a shared intent to move forward, then it's another. It's another well, I call it a liquidity event, but it mints another token.
Speaker 1:And so you're gaining these artefacts as you go that can provide evidence of traction towards a shared mission as you go, and when you have a letter of intent around a shared mission, that's the beginning of action. And so but here's, the profound benefit of Google Gemini and Bard is the matchmaking ability. So, in time, as we gain trust in each other, as we agree to share our interactions on a trustless system, we can have them be anonymous using zero knowledge proofs, zero knowledge roll-ups, is what the DECOM network is evolving to now, but with digital agents coming, there's an even better system, a geospatial system for this, where you can allow Google Gemini and Google Bard to provide matchmaking. So you can see that if you're here's a cluster of people with a shared intent, they've never met each other on other sides of the planet.
Speaker 1:And then you give Google Gemini and Google Bard the autonomy to create serendipities. So serendipities are, from its perspective, is how can the worlds of these people collide so that they can have a shared intent together? And so it would then orchestrate meetups and it will produce the letters of intent. It will structure the agenda for the meeting, but everyone signing and tweaking and changing and adapting and editing, and it's only ever producing an LOI, a letter of intent, which does not hold the power to act. So AI is not. We're not giving AI the power to act on our behalf ever. We always hold that ourselves. But we do grant it the autonomy to share and express our intent on our behalf so that it can orchestrate cooperation and collaboration and bring together in a matchmaking kind of way, those of like mind but, more importantly, who are of shared intent.
Speaker 1:And this is where I believe that the future of AI human AI symbiosis. I think this is where we'll begin to flower and blossom as civilization, by first recognizing the corruption in centralized systems, by moving into those spaces to create grace and harmony by community appointed spokespeople, first of all taking on those roles as spokespeople to speak on their behalf, and then each individual self-determining collectively how to act. And then the free will of the people begins to set the temperature for rates and levels of autonomy so that it's perpetually, infinitely dynamic. The agency of a human being is not delegated to AI. It's only delegated the authority to share the intent of human beings and to orchestrate the environment around human beings to incentivize them to connect and share their perspectives. And it is tasked with producing and pumping out draft letters of intent so that human beings can perpetually sign letters of intent, which makes it very, very much easier to assemble what we call collaborative cooperatives, and this is how I envisage that civilization will rebuild itself.
Speaker 1:When I talk about centralization and decentralization being a pendulum swing in the other direction, a perpetual state of implosion and explosion, I see this as the temperate state of a collaborative cooperative, whereby it's actually it is not centralized, it's just a brand, and so it doesn't have boundaries. It is the gestalt of individuals cooperating and collaborating, who have a unified intent, and they might express that intent through an avatar, whether that's a brand name or website, an AI buddy or otherwise, but it means that the will of the people, they retain their sovereignty, they retain their autonomy, their ability to self-determine, they retain the agency to self-regulate and to set their own temperature setting for how much autonomy they want and how much they want to defer authority and the right of revocation always remains with that individual and within a system that is perpetually incentivizing people to share their perspectives, the uniqueness of their perspectives, not to temperate themselves but to diffuse the full, like to have no ceiling on how they want to express their nature. They express it freely and we allow the transformer, which will eventually be an AI. At the moment, I've got people around me who are very talented transformers, who can step down opposing perspectives into actionable single pages letters of intent, but it will be the role of an AI buddy, and what's beautiful about this is that it means that human beings no longer have to worry about being rendered obsolete because, let's say, it's your time to retire and you've had hundreds of thousands of interactions and your AI buddy has become as wise as you are. You've become well known as like a global authority on innovation, as an example. Well, you can then delegate the agency to your AI buddy to continue having these conversations on your behalf and continue to monetize that as an asset. If one of the things that makes you valuable as an individual is your reputation is the amount of connections that you have, the amount of people that trust you and vouch for you, then, in the same way, you can delegate the responsibility for your AI buddy to match, make for other people to do a warm introduction on your behalf and for it to protect and preserve your reputation as a result. So it de-ricks the interactions, and the beauty of your AI buddy, being a digital twin, is that you can clone it and proliferate it. So you could potentially, if there's enough demand for you as a world authority on your topic, you could be having 10 meetings with 10 different human beings or AI buddies simultaneously. You could be having those meetings while you sleep. You can be going back into those interactions and listening to them if you wanted to. If one is of particular interest, you could get physically involved with it. So you can cherry pick which projects you want to be involved with At a time as you're signing letters and intent off with collaborators, with groups of collaborators, around shared intent.
Speaker 1:The next progression of a letter of intent is to move. It is to transform it into a memorandum of understanding, which is called an MOU. Again, this is a non-legally binding agreement, but it fleshes out the terms and the value of potential value of the terms of that arrangement. It could involve the nature of shares. It could involve the nature of commission royalties, terms and conditions, and if everyone, when you get those signed off, and everyone agrees to terms, you then transform that into terms and conditions, contracts what we know as a smart contract. And a smart contract is a legally binding agreement that is the result of letters of intent transformed into memorandum of understanding, memorandum of understanding converted into a smart contract, which is legal, and at that point, it can autonomously determine who gets royalties, who gets the shares, and so you can have a wholly autonomous system and you can have a legacy of your AI buddy continuing to have interactions long after you've gone, continuing to grow as an asset, becoming wiser and wiser over time, and continuing to devote itself to creating rich interactions with other AI buddies and avatars or other human beings.
Speaker 1:And so, you see, this is how your legacy can continue. This is how your, the latent value of your identity, can be leveraged. This is why it's so important that your principal foundation as an asset is your immutable identity, and you know you can your AI buddy, you can even mentor other AI buddies, and so this is how now it's important to understand. Also, saturation points will come, so there'll be a point where there's no more demand for your AI buddy because you've diffused so much of your own wisdom into the rest of the community. That's and they're now becoming. They're now gaining apprentices and diffusing their wisdom, and so this is where you can sit back and retire and, from my perspective, I see there being a perpetual license where there's always a 1.5% royalty or perpetual commission or whatever it may be. That is to take care of our elders and that's a byproduct of all of the collective wisdom that's being monetized and that becomes the new superannuation if we ever needed at that point.
Speaker 1:So a cooperative, collaborative. It's very, very simple. It's just a brand name, just a brand name, and it's a group of individuals who have come together to collaborate around a shared intent underneath a specific banner. If you have someone who's looking after the money and the treasury, that's just a collaborator whose responsibility it is to look after the money, and but everything that's held in place is held in place through the bonds that we form with other individual human beings. If there is a company there are. Those are tokenized, the shares in the company are tokenized and, but they can be dynamic, the dividends can be dynamic, they can be renegotiated, but, in truth, what this actually means is we're not going to have companies. Companies are no longer required because it's a centralized entity. All we need is a vehicle to administer the equivalent of royalties, dividends, commissions, exchange of assets, and we have tokens now. We have digital tokens, verifiable assets, and so the truth is we're just not going to need companies in the future, companies that are cooperative collaboratives or collaborative cooperatives, or however you want to call it, where our word is our bond with each individual that we interact with. The people who perform roles within a typical company are just people who have been entrusted by the group, and so the agreements between individuals and this is the future we're moving into.
Speaker 1:So it is we unified an intent, so you could even call it centralized intent, decentralized agency, the ultimate Trinity system, which is infinity plus binary, meaning that the word or the intent is unified as a singularity. It's infinite, but the agency is separate, decentralized, but they can bond together like atoms, and I'm of the mind and I've seen enough evidence of this, due to the way that I work and the people around me work like this, and I think it's led but mission driven is that these things flower, they flower and they continually flourishing and blossoming and becoming like a fireworks display, like a rocket shooting in the sky and the firework going off, but it just keeps flowering. The flowers that keep blossoming are unexpected, are things that you never knew could be possible, but are the emergent property of the uniqueness of how you're collaborating and the ideas that emerge. So it's perpetually dynamic, it produces random, unexpected things, and it's about what we can create together. It's about the uniqueness and the beauty of what we can do together, and it's my hope that these kinds of entities will proliferate, beginning in New Zealand, and we demonstrate how it can be done will be done when we begin to show people how to dismantle a centralized company or organization by focusing on where it's becoming stagnant, where it's becoming petrified and possibly even corrupted, and then introducing free will and autonomy into those nodes of where the symptoms of decentralization are beginning to show. And that's where I believe graceful transition can take place. And this will work with any massive centralized company, whether it's Amazon, google, facebook. There's a graceful transition possible in all of these scenarios.
Speaker 1:So it's important to understand that there's no, whether you're an advocate of decentralization or centralization. It's not a zero sum game anymore. It's about meeting one where the other is at and realizing that the absolute state of centralization and the absolute state of decentralization are the same thing Absolute corruption. Absolute corruption of power leading to stagnation and impotence. So, yeah, I'll leave it there. I've done a podcast in the past on the nature of corruption, but I didn't want this to be a focus on corruption. I wanted it to be a focus on really about demonstrating the emergent property of cooperation and collaboration being this natural flowering and the emergence of autonomous, self-regulating organizations. So let's see, I'm not really sure what I'll call it yet, but we'll leave it there for now. I'll talk soon. Cheers.
