⁉️The Problem

In the past, communities had control over energy, food, water, and housing. It has been 200 years, do you? Are you more free than a family in the 1800s? Many wonderful things have changed, but when it comes to our basics, are we better off? SOURCE: PBS Iowa

1. One of the most significant challenges facing humanity today is the fact that we no longer own the infrastructure that delivers our basic needs. This represents an absurd backward step compared to 100 years ago when individuals and communities had a stronger sense of ownership and control over essential services. In the past, people had a direct stake in the infrastructure that provided them with clean water, electricity, transportation, and other vital resources. They had a say in how these systems were operated, maintained, and improved. However, over time, the control and ownership of these critical infrastructures have shifted into the hands of centralized entities. This loss of ownership has led to a disconnection between individuals and the infrastructure that sustains them. It has resulted in a loss of control over the very systems that shape our lives and well-being. We have become dependent on external entities to provide us with these basic necessities, often at the cost of exorbitant fees, limited access, and a lack of transparency. The consequences of this shift are far-reaching, affecting our quality of life, our ability to thrive, our ability to connect as a community, and even our sense of autonomy.

2. The world needs way more energy, food, water, and housing. Costs are rising, and with more and more consumption, the quality of these basic human needs is diminishing rather than increasing as construction is not able to keep up with the demand. This results in an even bigger gap between the privileged and the marginalized. Furthermore, current solutions often fail to address underlying problems such as environmental consideration, poverty, and corruption, which are just as critical and need to be tackled before any real progress can happen. If the assets are built, but remain owned in the same centralized manner as today, then how will communities break free from the tyranny that is possible?

3. Everyone is trying to solve the problems of sustainability, but they are doing it in silos. There is no unified manner in the Web2 world to build trust and collaboration. This breeds areas of weakness and lack of resources that are exploited in innumerable ways. Organizations do not join together for fear of lack of individual funding. Inventors are afraid to build with others because they may lose their right to patents, or even worse have their ideas buried. Large companies can easily cause disruption with misinformation campaigns because they are united in their messaging and resources. Additionally, people with genuine intentions to contribute find it difficult to find a way to use their skills and resources in a way that moves the needle. These realistic issues hinder substantial collaborative progress, resulting in mere baby steps towards resolving one of humanity's most significant challenges.

4. Blockchain projects may bring decentralization, but those that do not have their tokens backed by physical assets face significant challenges, especially trust. The absence of tangible asset backing creates uncertainties regarding the intrinsic value and stability of the tokens. Investors and users may hesitate to engage with such projects due to the speculative nature of their tokens. Without physical assets supporting their value, these projects may struggle to establish trust and transparency, which are crucial for widespread adoption. The lack of concrete backing makes it difficult to assess the token's reliability and can lead to increased volatility. Consequently, crypto projects without asset backing face obstacles in attracting users, investors, and achieving long-term sustainability.

5. It requires millions in cash upfront to build sustainable projects, so communities and developers rely on outside capital upfront. Which means you have to partner with groups that are not connected to the end result for funding. So projects that are great for communities, and have great developers, still can't quickly and efficiently build and scale impact.

6. Outdated traditional finance (TradFi) systems are a catch-22. It takes years to push through each multi-million dollar project. To properly engineer and develop a project, the capital stack needs certainty of cash flow and timing to execute a deal, but existing funding often requires the deal must “be signed and built” before funding. This creates a catch-22, which slows down the process significantly and leads to educated guessing that also creates inefficiency for the market as good projects are still carrying the weight of a percentage of previous failures.

7. TradFi is still plagued with administrative and regulatory burdens, mostly dating back to pre-digital eras, which make it harder and more expensive to mobilize capital. It is estimated over 1.10% APR on every loan is lost in the inefficiencies of legacy systems just during the underwriting of a single project.

8. A lack of transparency in traditional infrastructure finance. Infrastructure is notorious for its low standard of transparency. Investors often sit at a distance from the underlying asset and are often kept in the dark about even basic operational information. This leads to distrust in the community around the infrastructure and adds challenges to deploying new projects.

9. The existing market fails the sustainable community/developer market that needs capital to adhere to three areas: 1. Certainty 2. Velocity 3. Scale.