This document specifies the design for a tiered, multi-level referral and incentive system to drive participation in the 1% Treaty global referendum. The goal is to create a powerful, self-propagating engine for growth that is resistant to fraud and aligns incentives across individuals, organizations, and coalitions. While this system focuses on incentivizing participation, our strategy for incentivizing skilled contributions is detailed in the Open Ecosystem and Bounty Model.
The goal of this tier is to achieve maximum global scale (3.5% of humanity) with minimal friction and legal risk.
The goal of this tier is to attract and reward the high-value contributors who will build the movement.
Research shows that when just 3.5% of a population actively participates in a movement, systemic change becomes highly likely (source). For the FDA Upgrade and Right to Trial Initiative, this means mobilizing 3.5% of the population in key countries around the world, starting with an initial target of 12 million Americans. Reaching this tipping point in major nations is the key to creating the political will for global policy transformation.
The "3.5% rule" is based on research by political scientist Erica Chenoweth, who analyzed hundreds of nonviolent movements and found that those engaging at least 3.5% of the population have never failed to achieve serious political change. This threshold is now widely cited as the tipping point for successful social movements (BBC Future, Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011).
| Threshold | Historical analogue | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| 100 k verifiable supporters | UK Parliament e-petition rule (prompts a floor debate) (UK petition 100k rule) | A concrete, fast first benchmark for national advocacy efforts. |
| ≈ 4 M public comments | U.S. FCC net-neutrality fight (2014–15) (Net-neutrality 4M comments - White House, Net-neutrality 4M comments - FCC) | Volume + mapping to districts can sway a federal agency. |
| 3.5 % of population (Global) | Chenoweth "3.5 % rule" dataset (1905-2006) (Chenoweth 3.5% rule) | Historically, non-violent movements at this level have never failed. |
The Oxford RECOVERY trial demonstrated that decentralized, pragmatic trials can reduce per-patient costs from $41,000 to $500—an 80X efficiency gain (Manhattan Institute, NCBI). This model saved over 1 million lives globally by rapidly identifying effective COVID-19 treatments (UKRI Impact Report).
Goal: Replicate this 80X efficiency for all medical research by passing aligned legislation in multiple countries, using viral referral rewards to reach the 3.5% tipping point in each nation.
While polling shows similar sentiment exists worldwide, the following data from the United States serves as a strong case study for the latent public support waiting to be mobilized.
| Data point | Source |
|---|---|
| 87 % of Americans say clinical-trial participation should be part of regular care | (Research!America survey 87 %) |
| >80 % approval when longevity is framed as "health improvement" | (Health-span framing study 2024) |
| 38 + states now have Right-to-Try laws; a federal RTT was signed 30 May 2018 | (State & federal Right-to-Try laws - Wikipedia, State & federal Right-to-Try laws - PMC) |
Take-away: The core challenge is not a lack of public support, but the absence of a legal and logistical path to channel that sentiment into effective action.
A well-designed referral-rewards system can:
| Component | Conservative | Aggressive (Viral) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Rewards | $0.50–$0.75 | $0.30–$0.50 | Cash, merch, or crypto |
| Paid Reach | $0.75–$1.00 | $0.10 | Ads, influencer micro-fees |
| Verification | $0.25 | $0.05 | KYC-lite vs. email/phone only |
| Total | $1.50–$2 | $0.45–$0.65 | Can drop to $0.20–$0.30 in best case |
Benchmarks:
Take-away: Digital advocacy groups are already acquiring verified actions for well under $0.60. A performance cap of ≤ $0.50 per verified pledge (and bonuses for < $0.30) is defensible. Using digital tactics and referral loops, < $0.50 per verified pledge is achievable.
| Scenario | Reward Pool | Paid Ads | Ops | Total | $/vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (roadmap) | $25k | $150k | $25k | $200k | $1.00 |
| Partner-list heavy | $25k | $40k | $20k | $85k | $0.43 |
| Viral best-case | $25k | $15k | $10k | $50k | $0.25 |
| Phase | Deliverable | Target | Budget guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. Infra (3 mo) | Pledge stack + referral engine | Live; fraud-checked | ≈ $60 k (engineer, ads, tests) |
| 1. Pilot Region/District (1-2 mo) | 10-20 k pledges in one swing region | ≤ $0.50 CPA | ≤ $10 k |
| 2. Country-wide Scale (6-9 mo) | 1 M pledges in first target country | $0.30-$0.40 CPA | $300-$400 k |
| 3. Policy Channel | Bill text + briefings for legislators | — | parallel |
| 4. Must-pass Vehicle | Attach to major health legislation (e.g., U.S. FDA User-Fee Act) | — | coalition |
The risks and mitigation strategies below are specific to the United States effort and serve as a template for analysis in other target countries.
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Safety advocates claim "deregulation" | Emphasize RECOVERY-style pragmatic trials & safety analytics. |
| FDA inertia | Frame as Phase IV modernization rather than gutting the agency. |
| Pharma incumbents | Seek endorsements from small-biotech and generics eager for cheaper trials. |
| Factor | Feasible? | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Latent public support | ✅ | see section 1 (polls & RTT precedent) |
| Cost to reach 1 M pledges | ✅ ($0.5 × 1 M = $500 k) | section 3 benchmarks |
| Legislative path | ✅ (e.g., 2027 UFA or RTT-2.0) | historical use of must-pass riders |
| Execution risk | ⚠️ needs milestones & single owner | see digital CPA cases |
Conclusion: With disciplined list-building (≤ $0.50 CPA) and a suitable "must-pass" legislative vehicle in each target country, this public education effort is realistically winnable on a global scale. The immediate next step is building the pledge engine and proving the model in a pilot region.
Below are three well-documented cases where large-scale, measurable public support translated into concrete policy change. They illustrate different mechanisms—petitions, massive online comments, and sustained mobilization—so you can show Keith (or anyone) that numbers really do move lawmakers when the threshold is high enough.
| Case | Scale of Support | Immediate Trigger | Policy Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Net Neutrality (2014-15) | ≈ 4 million public comments to the FCC + 100 000-signature White-House petition | FCC and White House both had to issue formal responses; President Obama publicly urged Title II reclassification | FCC adopted strong Title II net-neutrality rules in Feb 2015 | (time.com, washingtonpost.com) |
| UK Parliament e-petitions | Any petition that hits 100 000 signatures is "almost always" scheduled for a floor debate | Reaching the threshold forces the Petitions Committee to respond and usually sets a debate date | Examples include debates on meningitis vaccines, Brexit preparations, and highway code changes that later informed legislation | (petition.parliament.uk, parliament.uk) |
| Non-violent movements 1900-2006 (Chenoweth) | When ~3.5 % of a population participates actively, such movements have never failed in the historical dataset | Sustained mass participation (boycotts, strikes, demonstrations) | Regime change or major policy concessions in >50 cases (e.g., Philippines 1986, Serbia 2000) | (news.harvard.edu, nonviolent-conflict.org) |
Digital advocacy ≠ empty clicks.
Net-neutrality's 4 million comments and 100 k petition directly preceded the FCC's strongest pro-consumer rule-making in decades.
Formal thresholds matter.
In the UK system, 100 000 signers reliably buys parliamentary airtime—a practical, repeatable path from signature to legislative debate.
The 3.5 % rule is real.
Harvard's Erica Chenoweth shows that active engagement at that scale (e.g., ≈ 12 M Americans) has been historically sufficient for transformative change every single time it's been reached.
So when you propose a pledge/ referral system that can gather tens of thousands—or eventually millions—of district-mapped yes/no pledges, you're standing on solid historical precedent: big verified numbers force decision-makers to act.
With a disciplined referral-reward loop—and the right partner lists—we can comfortably beat $1 per verified vote and may reach sub-$0.30 territory. This is the lever to unlock 80X faster medical progress for everyone.
This system ensures participants earn real ownership of the economic value they create, not speculative digital assets with no intrinsic backing.
NOTE: The following cost-per-acquisition (CPA) analysis is based on the previous fiat-based model. It is retained for historical context but is no longer the primary model. The new model dramatically reduces upfront cash costs, shifting the expense to a contingent token liability.
| Channel | CPA (Direct) | CPA (Optimized) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paid Ads (e.g., FB/Google) | $3–$5 | $1.00–$1.50 | High initial cost, scales predictably |
| Promoted Petitions | $2–$4 | $0.75–$1.25 | Leverages existing platforms (e.g., Change.org) |
| Referral / Affiliate Payouts | $1–$3 | $0.50–$0.75 | Lower fraud, higher engagement |
| Total | $1.50–$2 | $0.45–$0.65 | Can drop to $0.20–$0.30 in best case |