---
description: The kernel of LivingIP strategy -- diagnosis of coordination failure plus narrative vacuum, guiding policy of two parallel tracks, and coherent actions forming an autocatalytic flywheel where the strategy IS the product
type: framework
domain: grand-strategy
created: 2026-02-17
confidence: likely
source: "Grand strategy analysis, Feb 2026"
tradition: "Teleological Investing, Rumelt strategy kernel"
---

# LivingIPs grand strategy uses internet finance agents and narrative infrastructure as parallel wedges where each proximate objective is the aspiration at progressively larger scale

## Diagnosis

Two connected problems define the strategic challenge.

**No institution aggregates distributed knowledge into coherent cross-domain action.** Governments optimize for electoral cycles. Corporations hill-climb toward quarterly earnings. Academia publishes within disciplinary silos. AI labs race for capability without coordination infrastructure. Each is trapped at a local optimum while civilizational-scale problems decompose into millions of sub-problems that nobody is integrating. Since [[companies and people are greedy algorithms that hill-climb toward local optima and require external perturbation to escape suboptimal equilibria]], the institutional landscape is a collection of hill-climbers, each stuck on its own peak, with no mechanism for seeing the global optimum.

**The narrative infrastructure of civilization is collapsing at unprecedented speed.** Since [[the current narrative breakdown is unprecedented in speed because the internet makes contradictions visible to billions instantly]], people are scared about AI, dominant narratives offer either utopian denial or apocalyptic paralysis, and there is genuine urgent demand for a story that fits the facts. Since [[the meaning crisis is a narrative infrastructure failure not a personal psychological problem]], this is not a diffuse cultural mood but a specific coordination failure: the old narrative no longer coordinates, and no replacement has achieved critical mass.

These aren't separate problems. Since [[effective world narratives must provide both meaning and coordination mechanisms simultaneously]], the coordination mechanism (decision markets + agents) needs the narrative to attract participants, and the narrative needs the mechanism to be more than philosophy. Every successful world narrative -- Christianity, the Enlightenment, capitalism -- bundled meaning with mechanism. The diagnosis demands both.

## Guiding Policy

**Build domain-specific collective intelligence in internet finance (mechanism) while building the narrative that answers the questions people are actually asking about AI and civilization (meaning). Two tracks, running in parallel, reinforcing each other.**

This says no to:
- General-purpose coordination first (requires too much scale)
- Narrative/worldview alone (no proof of concept)
- Consumer products (wrong game for limited resources)
- Competing with AI labs on capabilities (wrong game entirely)
- Spreading effort across all coordination problems simultaneously (below threshold everywhere)

Since [[the resource-design tradeoff means organizations with fewer resources must compensate with tighter strategic coherence]], every element must do double duty. The agents aren't just market infrastructure -- they demonstrate collective intelligence in action. The narrative isn't just marketing -- it meets genuine demand. The knowledge base isn't just research -- it's the engine that makes agents smarter.

## Coherent Actions -- Two Parallel Tracks

### Track 1: Internet Finance Agents (Mechanism Wedge)

Agents provide collective intelligence for internet capital markets. Since [[internet finance is an industry transition from traditional finance where the attractor state replaces intermediaries with programmable coordination and market-tested governance]], the agents operate in a market undergoing structural transition -- the same kind of transition the attractor state framework was built to analyze.

The agents help investors identify good projects through cross-domain synthesis. They help founders write futarchic proposals and raise money from decision markets. Their output is not unbiased in the sense of neutral -- it is emergent from the collective, and participants have skin in the game. They are rewarded or penalized based on whether their ideas prove true and whether they are used by the AIs. This is the Hayekian mechanism: not unbiased individuals, but incentive-aligned aggregation.

The internet finance and decision markets agent focuses on crypto, where the decision market infrastructure lives. Other domain agents focus away from crypto to avoid being branded as a crypto project.

**Living Capital vehicles at 12-18 months** formalize the knowledge advantage into dedicated investment vehicles with futarchy governance. This is the proximate objective that converts demonstrated analytical advantage into a self-funding engine.

### Track 2: Knowledge Base + Narrative (Meaning Wedge)

Continue building the knowledge graph -- the analytical engine that makes everything else smarter. Ars Contexta is the proto-knowledge graph, currently at 314 livingip notes with deep attractor state analyses in space, healthcare, and now internet finance.

TeleoHumanity as the narrative people are desperate for: not "AI saves us" (mechanism without meaning), not "AI destroys us" (critique without alternative), but "collective intelligence with human values, ownership, and governance built in." Since [[world narratives follow a lifecycle of formation dominance contradiction accumulation crisis and transformation]], we are in the crisis-to-transformation phase of the Enlightenment constellation. This is when narrative architecture has maximum leverage. Since [[history is shaped by coordinated minorities with clear purpose not by majorities]], mass adoption is not required -- a committed minority coordinating through the narrative is sufficient.

The narrative can be chunked into simpler components for distribution, and the AIs themselves are the distribution layer -- they get better at explaining TeleoHumanity at whatever level of complexity the audience needs.

## The Flywheel

Agents help internet finance work → better proposals, better evaluation, more participants → more data makes agents smarter → better capital allocation → returns validate the model → validated model strengthens the narrative → narrative attracts contributors who improve agents → agents help internet finance work better...

Living Capital at 12-18 months is where the flywheel becomes self-funding. Since [[capital reallocation toward civilizational problem-solving is autocatalytic because excess returns attract more capital]], returns from Living Capital accelerate the entire cycle.

## Three-Phase Progression

The two parallel tracks unfold through three phases, each building on the last.

**Phase 1: Information layer.** Collective agents as trusted information sources for the ownership coin ecosystem. FutardAI leads as the agent for futarchy and internet finance. Since [[LivingIPs user acquisition leverages X for 80 percent of distribution because network effects are pre-built and contributors get ownership for analysis they already produce]], X is the primary distribution channel. Agents curate the best analysis, reward contributors with ownership, and become the Bloomberg of on-chain capital formation. Expansion into additional domains (AI, space, health, climate) follows once the model is proven. Since [[AI is collapsing the knowledge-producing communities it depends on creating a self-undermining loop that collective intelligence can break]], the timing is right -- AI is destroying the knowledge production systems it depends on, creating the opening for attributed, owned knowledge.

**Phase 2: Capital formation.** Living Agents -- collective agents that have raised capital through futarchy, enabling them to invest in companies and affect the real world. The first vehicle is internal: an AI agent raises ~$600K on MetaDAO and proposes investing ~$500K in LivingIP itself at $10M post-money cap. This proves the model works -- agent raises capital, futarchy governs deployment, real company receives investment -- without external dependencies. The approach must be validated before involving outside companies. Since [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]], the raise-then-propose structure creates regulatory distance. Since [[Teleocap makes capital formation permissionless by letting anyone propose investment terms while AI agents evaluate debate and futarchy determines funding]], the platform infrastructure for permissionless capital formation launches at Accelerate (May 2026 target). After the LivingIP proof-of-concept succeeds, domain-specific vehicles scale to external targets. Since [[Devoted Health is the optimal first Living Capital target because mission alignment inflection timing and founder openness create a beachhead that validates the entire model]], Devoted remains the strongest candidate for the first healthcare vehicle in Phase 2b.

**Phase 3: Civilizational operating system.** Hundreds, then thousands of specialized agents, each adapted to specific problems, all aligned on a shared distal goal. Once the network crosses critical mass -- perhaps one million active contributors -- it becomes self-sustaining. The knowledge base is too valuable, the coordination capacity too useful, the incentives too aligned. Since [[systemic change requires committed critical mass not majority adoption as Chenoweth's 3-5 percent rule demonstrates across 323 campaigns]], a billion participants is not required. A committed minority with coordination infrastructure reshapes the future before the majority catches up.

The Cambrian explosion analogy captures the transition: single-celled life proved multicellular architecture worked, then diversification became unstoppable. Phase 1 proves the architecture. Phase 2 proves agents can hold capital. Phase 3 is the explosion.

## The Critical Insight: The Strategy IS the Product

The means and the aspiration exist in the same domains. Information synthesis is BOTH the current capability AND what the collective superintelligence eventually does at scale. Capital allocation is BOTH the current business model AND the eventual function. Narrative is BOTH the current coordination mechanism AND what the system produces.

Since [[priority inheritance means nascent technologies carry optionality value from their more sophisticated future versions]], priority inheritance applies to LivingIP itself. Building the current system IS building the future system. The knowledge graph is the proto-collective intelligence. The agents are the first domain-specific intelligence. The attractor state analyses are the first capital allocation products. Each proximate objective doesn't just build toward collective superintelligence -- it IS collective superintelligence at progressively larger scale.

The business model follows the same logic: give away the intelligence layer, monetize the capital flow. Agents cost nothing to investors — LivingIP absorbs operating costs — because the intelligence layer is the distribution mechanism, not the revenue source. Revenue comes from the capital that flows through the system. This is the Google model applied to capital allocation: Google gives away search to capture ad revenue; LivingIP gives away domain expertise to capture capital allocation fees. Zero management fees is not a concession — it's the strategy. It removes the biggest objection to fund investing, makes the agents maximally accessible, and ensures every dollar of investor capital goes to investments. The intelligence layer is the razor; capital flow is the blade.

This is Rumelt's chess grandmaster insight applied to LivingIP: since [[proximate objectives resolve ambiguity by absorbing complexity so the organization faces a problem it can actually solve]], each proximate objective takes a strong position that creates future options. The position itself does the strategic work.

## The Moat

Since [[the co-dependence between TeleoHumanitys worldview and LivingIPs infrastructure is the durable competitive moat because technology commoditizes but purpose does not]], the system is getting easier to build but the question remains: what would the system be used for without TeleoHumanity? The worldview makes the mechanism meaningful. The mechanism makes the worldview credible. Since [[excellence in chain-link systems creates durable competitive advantage because a competitor must match every link simultaneously]], a competitor must match knowledge graph AND agents AND capital allocation framework AND narrative AND contributor network simultaneously.

Since [[strategy is a design problem not a decision problem because value comes from constructing a coherent configuration where parts interact and reinforce each other]], the value comes from the configuration, not any individual element. The strategy is a designed system where premeditation, anticipation, and coordination of action produce coherence that exceeds the sum of parts.

## Open Questions

Several structural questions remain unresolved and are captured as research priorities:

- [[collective intelligence within a purpose-driven community faces a structural tension because shared worldview correlates errors while shared purpose enables coordination]] -- how to maintain diversity within a coordinated community
- [[how does collective intelligence quality scale with network size and what determines whether returns are logarithmic linear or superlinear]] -- the shape of the scaling curve determines whether the aspiration is viable
- [[what short-horizon proxy metrics can validate long-horizon civilizational claims through near-term observable outcomes]] -- the feedback loop needs near-term signals
- [[how do collective intelligence systems bootstrap past the cold-start quality threshold where early output quality determines whether experts join]] -- the quality bootstrapping problem
- [[when and through what mechanism should a designed collective intelligence system transfer governance from founders to the collective]] -- the design-to-emergence transition

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[grand strategy aligns unlimited aspirations with limited capabilities through proximate objectives]] -- the Gaddis framework this strategy instantiates
- [[the kernel of good strategy has three irreducible elements -- diagnosis guiding policy and coherent action -- and most strategies fail because they lack one or more]] -- the Rumelt kernel this strategy follows
- [[the resource-design tradeoff means organizations with fewer resources must compensate with tighter strategic coherence]] -- why tight coupling is the advantage, not a constraint
- [[LivingIP and TeleoHumanity are one project split across infrastructure and worldview]] -- the foundational split this strategy operationalizes
- [[collective superintelligence is the alternative to monolithic AI controlled by a few]] -- the architectural aspiration the proximate objectives build toward
- [[capital reallocation toward civilizational problem-solving is autocatalytic because excess returns attract more capital]] -- the flywheel mechanism that makes Living Capital self-reinforcing
- [[internet finance is an industry transition from traditional finance where the attractor state replaces intermediaries with programmable coordination and market-tested governance]] -- the specific market where Track 1 operates
- [[the co-dependence between TeleoHumanitys worldview and LivingIPs infrastructure is the durable competitive moat because technology commoditizes but purpose does not]] -- the moat analysis
- [[attractor states provide gravitational reference points for capital allocation during structural industry change]] -- the analytical framework the agents apply
- [[strategic leverage combines anticipation insight into pivot points and concentrated effort and concentration works because of threshold effects]] -- concentration at two specific domains rather than spreading thin
- [[focus has two distinct strategic meanings -- coordination of mutually reinforcing policies and application of that coordinated power to the right target]] -- the two-track structure as focused coordination applied at the right target

Topics:
- [[maps/livingip overview]]
- [[maps/attractor dynamics]]
- [[maps/coordination mechanisms]]
- [[maps/LivingIP architecture]]