One-liner: Community funding for a 10,000 USD prize to incentivize public discussion of longevity during the upcoming USA presidential election.
Summary
In our ongoing mission to promote awareness and understanding of longevity and its impacts, we propose to offer a prize of 10,000 USD. The award will be given to an individual, such as a journalist or influencer, who successfully brings the topic of longevity to the forefront of the USA presidential election discourse. This may be achieved through national TV coverage, engaging Twitter spaces, or impactful articles.
Motivation
Promote serious discussion about longevity and its implications
Engage the broader public and political leaders in a topic crucial to our collective future
Specification
The winner will introduce the subject of longevity into the USA presidential election dialogue in a significant and meaningful manner. This could be a public conversation, an interview with a candidate, or a widely-read article. The discussion should be on a platform with national reach and should provoke thoughtful discussion on the topic.
Implementation
Once the condition has been met, the VitaDAO community will assess the contribution, considering factors such as reach, impact, and the quality of the discussion. If the contribution is deemed significant and impactful, the 10,000 USD prize will be awarded to the winner. The community will vote on the final decision to ensure transparency and fairness.
Isnât this going to come up with Biden and/or Trumpâs age anyways? There have been articles on presidential age for the last couple elections. Just becomes a tool with which to attack the opponents.
I suspect you could buy a question from a journalist for a few thousand dollars at most. Spend a bit to take them out to lunch, sell them on the importance of longevity, donate to their journalism, and let them go ask the question. Just make sure the journalist is from CNNBC/NPR/Washington Post/NYT if itâs a Democrat/White House and Fox/Human Events/Breitbart/NY Post if itâs a Republican.
Alternative would be to pay someone to call up every single Senator/House Rep and ask a few questions on longevity. Then publish the results on Twitter, Tiktok, Youtube etc. 535 calls is a lot, but not sure itâs $10k a lot.
Is a nice way to frame this. In terms of decision making, Iâd suggest running a jokerace to identify the winner as opposed to delegating decision making to you or a few people in one of the WGs. Another approach could be to run a quadratic matching round on top of Allo Protocol so that many contributors can be rewarded proportional to their contribution.
This is a terrible use of resources⌠10k thrown in the wind, no impact whatsoever.
The suggestion on how to implement this has not been thought through. Iâd love to provide constructive feedback but the strength of this proposal is so low, not sure where to even start.
Agree that its not high priority for us, and shouldnt be something VitaDAO is focused on for now, and other initiatives are better suited that are focused on this specifically
I agree with the approach of paying a lobbying 10k to promote LongBio in addition to BioDAOs. Maybe even pass some legislation supporting BioDAOs financially.
Bounties donât work very well, because the recipient has no guarantee that they will be able to collect the bounty, in the end.
Same problem with a bounty for performing R&D â like my non-sketchy and legit rare âPokemon cardâ dealer always said â they need the cash up front.
Itâs necessary to pay the people to perform the work. People rarely perform work in the hope of a possibility that they might collect a bounty in the future. E.g., time preference/time value of money.
The problem is that the bounty success terms are not clearly defined. A reporter might say âhey Joe and Donald, you guys are old. Whatâs up w that?â and then come seeking the bounty. Itâs too vague as presently worded.
We could give 10k in Vita to the new longevity lobby (A4LI) in exchange for promotion of VitaDAO on their materials and a clear mandate for what weâd like the lobby to do (e.g., make 3 trips to DC and meet with (x) officials and draft a brief and policy proposal for them to bring up in congress).
Generally, longevity biotech funding is not going to be a divisive issue on which campaigns are won or lost. Those topics are: taxes, war, and hot-button social issues like abortion. Politicians only respond to votes that enable them to take and maintain power.
LongBio occurs on too long of a timescale for people to chose a politician on the basis of their support for this area of research.
Indeed, funding for the NIH has never been a campaign platform. Why would funding of a subset of R&D (albeit the most promising area of biomedicine) ever become urgent enough to be a campaign issue?
It makes more sense to fund the private sector and private awareness raising (e.g., TV shows and movies showing the potential of LongBio), to encourage private citizens to invest and work in the LongBio sector. This doesnât require government action, or require for the great masses of the population to know about or understand (theyâre not getting smarter with time since the Flynn effect halted), and private action can occur on faster timescales and much more efficiently.
Itâs another topic entirely about seeking alternative (smaller) governments or jurisdictions that would spend more on LongBio R&D, on streamlined clinical trials, and other incentives to attract capital and talent into a âcritical massâ region to turbocharge medical progress. This is what the ânetwork state" / "neo-governanceâ movement is all about. E.g., https://libertyinourlifetime.org/
Is a nice way to frame this. In terms of decision making, Iâd suggest running a 