Wealthy individuals who want to increase their healthspan should issue social policy bonds that pay the face value to current bond owner if and only if the wealthy individual is happy and healthy at say, age 120.
Social policy bonds were invented by economist Ronnie Horesh, who defines them as follows:
"Social Policy Bonds are non-interest bearing bonds, redeemable for a fixed sum only when a targeted social objective has been achieved. The bonds would be backed by government or private bodies, auctioned on the open market, and freely tradable at all times. "
More on social policy bonds from Ronnie Horesh.
For example, suppose Elon Musk issued one million "lifebonds" that pay the current owner of each lifebond the face value of$100 if Elon Musk is happy and healthy at age 120 (as determined by some judgment mechanism).
Since it's uncertain that Musk will be alive at 120, the lifebonds might sell at initial auction for say, $0.05/bond. Bond owners would have an incentive to act to ensure Elon's continued health and longevity.
For example, VC firms might buy the bonds at auction, then finance anti-aging research. If their research is successful, the probability of the bonds paying off should increase. Note that the VC's don't have to own the bonds to maturity to profit--they need only increase the market's estimation of the probability that the bonds will pay out. Having made their (partial) contribution to the goal, they could re-sell the bonds to someone else to carry the ball forward.
On the other hand, if Musk takes up risky habits--such as, say, wingsuit flying--the value of the bonds will go down. Bond investors will likely want to invest in a bundle of lifebonds so as to reduce their risk of loss from any single individual.
Lifebonds would have the following benefits:
* Increase in the speed of scientific research. Since everyone who owns the bonds gets paid regardless of how the terms of the bond are met, every bondholder is incentivized to collaborate freely with every other bondholder.
* Reduction in the difficulty of identifying skilled contributors. People who think they can help achieve the goal would identify themselves by buying the bonds.
* Reduction in the difficulty allocating funds. Maybe increasing funding scientific research is the most impactful way to spend money. But maybe lobbying the FDA to streamline medical regulations should be highest priority. Bondholders are strongly incentivized to allocate money in whatever path most likely to lead to meeting the terms of the lifebond,
* Increased cooperation between AI accelerationists and AI doomers. Doomers don't want to die from excessive regulation and accelerationists don't want to be killed by rogue AI's. Bondholders would be incentivized to balance both risks and allocate funds accordingly.
To my knowledge, the software to issue / trade / judge lifebonds doesn't exist yet. Such software should have the following features:
1. peer to peer / decentralized
2. private / anonymous
3. hardy / long-lived
4. supports dispute resolution
5. supports smart contracts
6. adaptable / upgradable (the bonds might have to last 1000+ years)
Given the current regulatory climate, such bonds might be regarded as securities. Several open source projects have been attacked by government regulators for violating securities / FinCEN regulations (@LBRY, @Ripple, @SamouraiWallet, @TornadoCash). Therefore, the development of the software should probably be done in a decentralized, anonymous fashion.
There are a number of projects at maturity or near maturity that offer some of the features a lifebond market would require:
1. @bisq_network, @HavenoDex, @radicle
2. @Monero, @zcash, @darkfisquad, @minaprotocol
3. @ArweaveEco
4. @Chainlink, @kleros_io
5. @ArweaveEco , @tezos
6. @minaprotocol, @illiumcrypto, @tari
Comments, questions, and suggestions welcome. If you'd like to help develop lifebonds, please sign up for the "Acceleration Nation newsletter". Lifebonds are high priority for me, so I will do my best to advance this project.