Open Empire design methodology – general approach

I just thought I’d share with you some of the architectural design principles I’ve used so far in developing the Open Empire framework: beginning with the general approach.

So in any complex system where we’re trying to achieve a set of objectives, but we have unknown run-time (implementation) variables, which could result in undesirable/unexpected consequences, &/or detrimentally impact desired/expected outcomes … we want to do research and testing before an attempt is made … but where we have past successful attempts, we want to lend from this past experience to accelerate our outcomes, and thus buy time to improve on them where possible.

In general terms, the above can be described in the following way:

  • The conceptual realm of possibility, probability & potential, is applied to sets of objectives, circumstances & consequences;
  • This allows us to build a virtual model in order to test & retest our hypothesis, until the desired outcome is sufficiently likely, and any undesired / unexpected consequences have been identified and minimised;
  • To use some programming parlance: this in turn allows us to select our compile-time (planning) protocols & classes;
  • Which finally gives us our run-time (implementation) objects, method-calls & decisions.

Now you might not be familiar with the above terms, so let me break it down for you.

  • CONCEPTUAL REALM: where we think (create, contemplate, consider and extrapolate ideas and information);
  • POSSIBILITY: the full gamut of all non-zero-probability events;
  • PROBABILITY: the case specific likelihood of any outcome, where 0% = impossible, and 100% = certain;
  • RELATIVE POTENTIAL: the bounded difference between sets of possibilities, relative to a baseline;
  • ABSOLUTE POTENTIAL: the total gamut of all bounded possibilities, ie: a possibility / probability field;
  • VIRTUAL MODEL: simulating something from the conceptual realm with a physical, digital or mental model;
  • HYPOTHESIS: your guess / understanding of how a model will work out when run (executed);
  • CONSEQUENCES: the specific quantification of state-change of objects, including properties, functions & relations;
  • STATE-CHANGE: where the properties &/or functions &/or relationships within &/or between objects change;
  • COMPILE-TIME: a programming term, similar to a business plan; ie – a template of objects and actions;
  • PROTOCOLS: the specific classes of object & actions in design, implementation / planning perspective;
  • RUN-TIME: what actually happens (consequences) when a design / implementation gets run / executed;
  • OBJECTS, METHOD-CALLS & DECISIONS: the elements of any specific run-time journey or pathway.

So … to break this down even further & simplify it:

  1. We model the fundamental approach to problem solving;
  2. We account for desired outcomes, probability/potential of success, and risk/potential of consequences;
  3. We encode this as a generic framework;
  4. We use data, resources & capabilities generated by the outcome of each action taken under the framework, to feedback into the growth & evolution of the framework, and thus into all existing & future elements & outcomes generated by the framework, or by any project undertaken under the framework.

I’m cheating a little bit with my use of some of the terms above, because I’m trying to simultaneously deal with both technical and non-technical audiences, so please just ignore any differences you see between my usage and formal definitions, if you happen to be in the technical spectrum of audience members.


So, if you have a rough grip of what I’m saying above, the next part to understand, is that a specific set of potential consequences (justice and sustainability), can be properly rather than vaguely defined and thus quantified in scientific units of measurement, along with mathematically applicable ratios (non-unitised), and then incorporated at a fundamental level into the model, thus specifically applied to ecological and social outcomes (what we’re ultimately all after) … and this is effectively the biggest difference between what I’m doing in my own blockchain development versus Ethereum.


One consequence of the above quantification of justice and sustainability, is that project collaboration, development and resource allocation is also foundational & fundamental to the architecture of Open Empire … you can decide to do things which are neither ecologically nor socially friendly, but the mechanisms of the framework itself will encourage you to do otherwise.


A further consequence of this (and more than 2 decades of my own contemplation and research, including the work of others who came before me, and those I have worked with), has resulted in the conclusion that the very notions of property, trade & currency are so fundamentally flawed, that the best possible outcomes are in all cases either:

  1. unattainable, or;
  2. highly improbable,

under that existing economic paradigm … Meanwhile, a frightening gamut of potentially catastrophic consequences are already happening, highly likely, or utterly certain if we continue down the path we’re on.

Therefore the decision was made many years ago to develop a framework which included non-currency-based economic interaction, which has since evolved into non-property/trade/currency-based economic interaction.


It effectively comes down to this:

  • If something is not scarce, the only thing that matters is that our methods of harvest, storage, processing, utilisation and waste/recycling do not cause scarcity, nor any other detrimental ecological or social consequences (if such can be at all avoided);
  • If something is scarce, then what matters is:
    • Assessing our past interactions and their consequences;
    • Assessing the various options for present utilisation (including non-usage);
    • Determining the best allocation against desired outcomes, including the reduction of future scarcity;

Thus we have a mechanism which doesn’t command you, but nonetheless influences you to choose to think both in terms of your immediate needs AND in terms of the greater consequences beyond yourself, and beyond the moment.

If you’re desperate for whatever reason, you can still make a selfish choice, and that’s perfectly understandable … we will all do it from time to time, but you’re no longer driven by a system that almost exclusively encourages & rewards selfish interests as a sole and/or primary motivation.


So the architecture of my design and my design approach is driven by different principles which are inseparable from the core architecture … for to separate them would ultimately undermine the objectives I’m aiming at.

The big difference here is that Ethereum aims roughly at human productivity, efficiency & some aspects of autonomy and social justice, but does not even incorporate all those at the core of its system … it’s quite capable of changing itself to do so, but in order to achieve that objective, it really needs the input of my research, because I can tell them right now that if they think what they’ve achieved already was a brain-bending exercise, EVEN WITH my input they ain’t seen nothing yet!

By contrast, Open Empire has all these things and more at its core; ie:

  • non-species-biased;
  • non-property/trade/currency-based;
  • non-hierarchical (anarchic)

law, economics and politics.


I have been trying to reach out to many groups for help:

  • The Zeitgeist Movement;
  • The Venus Project;
  • The RBE Community;
  • The Ubuntu Movement;
  • The Buckminster Fuller Institute;
  • The Rocky Mountains (Research) Institute;
  • The Unreasonable Institute;
  • Virgin Unite & Richard Branson;
  • Ethereum Foundation;
  • Various Universities, other NFPs, and Government-funded programs and organisations;
  • Plus every single contact I have on several social media platforms …

… but so far, I have received only the tiniest fraction of the support I require.

What concerns me is the accelerated rate of ecological and social decay, occurring simultaneously to the decline of resource availability … as the existing economic paradigm continues to chew through resources at a break neck pace, most of which is a complete and total waste of the potential of those resources … thus we come closer to an unknown threshold (perhaps we’ve already passed it) where no feasible solution of any existing or near future technology can resolve the problems before catastrophe hits.

… and to make matters worse, we have insane people at the helm in both the political and business worlds.

So … would I collaborate with Ethereum? Fuck yes.

… but I need someone to get me the introduction and to sponsor the meeting etc., because I am personally & environmentally (resource) exhausted.

Leave a Reply