User:DanB/BaseStead Strategy

Seasteading and Startups

When examining any project, it makes sense to compare it to other similar projects that have been carried out in the past. By analyzing the causes of the success or failure of previous projects, one can gain insight into the problems and pitfalls that the present project will likely encounter.

It is difficult to apply this technique to Seasteading, since it is an unique project. Previous micronation projects were complete failures. But by zooming out a bit more, we can see that Seasteading is a lot like starting a company. Since there are many successful startup companies, and there is a lot of lore about how to do it well, it makes sense to see if that philosophy can help us think about Seasteading.

To start off, consider this Paul Graham essay. It contains two maxims that I think are especially relevant: Launch Fast and Let Your Idea Evolve. Taken together, the point is that you want to launch something, and then get feedback from users to guide the subsequent evolution of the idea. The underlying point is that it is pointless to speculate about the ideal ultimate design of the product, prior to actually putting the product in someone's hands and seeing how they react to it.

I submit that the Seasteading community is following the opposite approach. We are engaged in speculation regarding the ideal ultimate seastead design, without having nearly enough information to justify that speculation. Furthermore, the current Seasteading timeline is anything but fast. In five years, we will have ten seasteaders? For those (like myself) who believe TSI is humanity's last best hope for freedom, the timeline is simply depressing.

From the startup company analogy, another line of thought emerges. I submit that many start-ups suffer from the following failure mode. The company begins as a bunch of computer hackers with an idea for a cool new technology. After discussing the technical feasibility for a while, they conclude that the technology can be built. Bursting with excitement, they hole themselves up in a basement and start hacking. Some product comes out of this effort, but because the founders did not put enough thought into the business plan, they cannot achieve fast enough revenue growth and eventually die.

Are Seasteaders entering the same failure mode? It's not clear. Certainly a lot of effort is expended on discussion of designs. This is in spite of the fact that no one really doubts that seasteads are in principle feasible. There are many Wiki pages and book pages dedicated to technical issues, but only one vague book section ("Our Proposal") which discusses the overall strategy. Note that the process of writing a business plan or strategy document is very useful even if it simply recapitulates what everyone already knew, because:

• It makes assumptions and risk factors explicit.
• It ensures that everyone on the team has an idea of what needs to be done and what direction the organization is moving in.
• It allows the leaders of the organization to convince outside parties, such as funding agencies, of the basic viability of the proposal.

Current Strategies

A strategy is a plan of action that will achieve a goal. The Seasteading community has a well defined goal: construct autonomous floating societies. This is an enormously ambitious goal. It involves at least the following steps:

• Design and construction of large scale floating structures.
• Development of a legal framework guiding the relationship of Seasteaders with one another, and with the outside world.
• Convincing large numbers of people to uproot their lives, careers, and families and risk everything to move to a far off place with a bunch of strangers, some of whom have expressed a (shall we say) certain moral laxness.
• Development of an economic structure that allows the Seasteaders to support themselves.

A good strategy document should describe how to achieve the above goals. The specifics of TSI's strategy are not clear to me, however I will try to describe some of the strategic approaches that have been discussed.

Diaspora. Concentrate on the design of one-family structures. If a good, inexpensive one-family seastead becomes available, many families will make use of the option and head out to sea. They will float around, occasionally stopping at ports. They are not expected to form larger groups, and so there is not much in the way of legal framework to worry about.

Pros: Simple. Finesses the problem of legal framework. Design issues are less problematic, as proposed structures are smaller.

Cons: Economic issues problematic (though maybe living on a boat at sea is actually inexpensive). Hard to imagine that living on a one-family seastead would be a particularly comfortable lifestyle. Some people do not have families.

Incrementalism, described in the book here. The idea here is to start with a small, inexpensive, close-to-land structure, and then build progressively larger and more self-sufficient structures.

Pros: incrementalism is good. The location is near the US, a large source of potential tourists and customers.

Cons: significant risk for participants (see below). Not clear what participants do between Xstead iterations.

Clubstead. Build a floating resort/casino in the SF bay. If it is successful, construct subsequent, similar structures until a small city has been built.

Pros: Less risk for participants. Explicitly addresses the economic issue.

Cons: To live on ClubStead, you will either have to work there (e.g. at the reception desk) or pay lots of money for a room. Very high upfront costs, and substantial risk, for initial investors. Implies that Seasteading project will depend strongly on vicissitudes of economy. Not clear how and when the seasteads shift from being a cluster of commercial ventures like the Vegas strip, into being a real city/community.

Seabase Strategy

The plan involves the use of a "seabase". This is basically living place which is much more reliable than a seastead prototype would be. The seabase can be one of the following:

1. Used cargo or cruise ship.
2. Uninhabited desert island (e.g. Clipperton Island)
3. Seaside plot of land in a tax haven country (e.g. Cayman Islands or Anguilla).
4. Seaside plot of land in an established country (e.g. USA)

The various advantages and disadvantages of the different choice of seabase are discussed below. The important property of a seabase is that it is highly reliable. The problems of living on a seabase are well-understood and -solved. If a group of people decided they wanted to form a community on a seabase, there are no technological problems stopping them.

The seabase strategy can be summed up as follows: seastead=seabase+X. X represents the work and money expended on designing and constructing the floating platform. At the beginning of the process, X is small. In this regime, the seastead is basically just the seabase. This is not great, but is also not so bad (compare the formula seastead=X). As time goes on X becomes large, and eventually we no longer rely on the seabase at all.

The seabase strategy is as follows. First, organize a small core group of adventurous souls, perhaps 10-100 in number. This group moves to the seabase and simply lives there. At the beginning, they don't worry much about spar designs or the merits of ferrocement at all. They just try to solve the basic problems of living: how to make money, how to resolve disputes, and how to live comfortably in a strange environment.

Once these problems are approximately solved, they start to do two things. First, they begin to design and build seastead structures. Second, they try to recruit other people into the community (it may be that finding people is easy, but effectively integrating them into the community is hard). As more and more people arrive, the seabase economy starts to grow, and the seastead construction process starts to accelerate. As the seasteading structures become more reliable, more people spend time there as opposed to the seabase. But note that the seabase and seastead form an integrated community: moving from the seabase to the seastead does not require a major life upheaval. Critically, note that the risk from technical seastead design problems are mitigated: if prototype A sinks, the people just swim back to the seabase and try again later.

Risk

Every ambitious project involves an element of risk. Seasteading is an enormously ambitious project, and so it involves a large share of risk. There are several types of risk, which can be categorized as follows:

• Physical risk: your life may be in peril.
• Financial risk: investors and participants may lose a lot of money.
• Life/Career/Time risk: you might lose a lot of time, fall behind on your career advancement, etc.

Physical risk is rightly at the top of everyone's list of concerns. But the other two risks are also significant, and merit significant attention. I contend that the seabase strategy substantially mitigates risk compared to the ClubStead strategy and the BITWC strategy.

The ClubStead strategy appears to involve substantial risk on the part of investors. The initial ClubStead structure will cost tens of millions of dollars. If the business venture fails, the money will be lost. It may be difficult to convince investors to fund such a project, in the current economic climate.

In the BITWC strategy, all three risks are present, and must be born by participants. Most estimates imply that the cost of housing on a seastead will be comparable to the cost of housing on land. When one considers that most people have to take out large loans to afford homes on land, and those loans will likely not be forthcoming for the purchase of such high-risk seaborne property, these estimates seem quite discouraging.

The life/career/time risk is also very significant in the BITWC strategy. Imagine that TSI constructs a Seastead and begins recruiting people to live on it. You decide you want to go. You quit your job, sell all your possessions, maybe even break up with your girlfriend. You move out to the seastead. A year after you arrive, some technical issue comes up and the 'stead sinks. No one is harmed, and TSI vows to construct a new version that will fix the problem, but in the meantime the participants have nothing to do but go back to land and try to put their lives back together. Note that BITWC involves risk coming from both technical and socio-economic factors.

The Seabase strategy substantially mitigates risk from the technical factors. If the first seastead prototype doesn't work, the participants just go back to the seabase and continue living their lives as before. Depending on the choice of specific form of the Seabase, it should also be possible to mitigate financial risk. For example, the cost per person of a used cruise ship appears to be somewhere in the $10,000 range; a 300 person ship seems to cost about $3 million (see here for example). Importantly, a cruise ship has a substantial resale value, mitigating risk in the event of project failure. Other choices for the Seabase may not involve significant upfront costs at all.