Project Summary

SHORT ANSWER
The Deal of the Century aims to persuade a critical mass of key potential influencers of Trump's AI policy—J.D. Vance, Sam Altman, Steve Bannon, Dario Amodei, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Marco Rubio, Demis Hassabis, Pope Leo XIV, and others—to champion a timely US-China-led global AI treaty, that prevents catastrophic AI risks while securing American leadership. With a 130-page Strategic Memo published September 24th and ongoing direct engagement through our US Persuasion Tour, we're converting 77% US voters' public support for a strong international AI treaty into decisive political action before an opening political window closes.

DETAILED ANSWER

We're at a fork in history. Leading US AI labs—OpenAI, xAI, Meta, NVIDIA—openly aim for Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), AI that self-improves beyond human control. Most leading AI lab leaders acknowledge the risks and are calling for bold regulation, yet no coordinated response exists, nor is leadership shown by the Presidents of China and the US.

History offers a precedent. On June 14, 1946—literally hours after Trump's birth—President Truman's advisors persuaded him to propose the Baruch Plan, history's boldest treaty for global nuclear control (coincidentally presented barely an hour after the birth of Donald Trump!). It nearly succeeded. Today we face similar stakes with a second chance to get it right, by learning from its mistakes.

A narrow but real window exists. Trump visits China in late 2025. 77% of US voters already support strong international AI treaties. A handful of trusted influencers—Vance, Altman, Bannon, the Pope, Gabbard, Rogan, Carlson—share overlapping concerns and ethical values, and have the access to shift Trump's stance. If 3-4 unite around this vision, history can change.

Our approach is unique: We're not producing another white paper. We've created an operational blueprint with deep psychological profiles of each influencer, tailored pitches for their values, and a novel ultra-high-bandwidth and "constituent assembly" based treaty-making process that avoids the failures that doomed previous international governance of dangerous technologies. We frame this as "peace through strength"—not globalism, but American-led advantage with an unmatched presidential legacy.

We're executing now. Our team has completed the Strategic Memo with backing from 1,600+ hours of pro bono work from advisors at the UN, NSA, WEF, Princeton, Yale, and leading AI safety experts. We're currently in the Bay Area (through Oct 21) meeting with OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepMind leaders, then DC (Oct 21-24) for national security establishment engagement, followed by Rome and Mar-a-Lago.

The race is between our persuasion timeline and ASI development timelines, measured in months. Every week of delay exponentially increases irreversible risk.

What Are This Project's Goals? How Will You Achieve Them?

SHORT ANSWER
Our goal is to persuade at least 3-4 key Trump AI influencers to jointly pitch Trump privately for a US-led global AI treaty, over the next few months, ahead of his meetings with President Xi. We achieve this through: (1) direct delivery of tailored Strategic Memo materials to influencers via warm introducers during our Q4 2025 Persuasion Tour, (2) field engagement at AI lab headquarters to activate internal champions, (3) strategic gatherings in Bay Area, DC, Rome, and Mar-a-Lago to coordinate introducers, and (4) continuous refinement of our case based on feedback from 30+ national security, AI safety, and policy advisors.

DETAILED ANSWER

Primary Goal: Critical Mass of Influencers Get 3-4 key influencers to jointly pitch Trump on championing a global AI treaty before his China visit. Historical analysis shows Truman shifted on the Baruch Plan when Oppenheimer, Acheson and a few others presented a united front. Trump responds to consensus among trusted advisors, based on a pragmatic case.

Secondary Goal: Enabler Network Build a coalition of 20-30 introducers who can credibly deliver our materials to influencers. We're not cold-calling—we're leveraging our network of former NSA officials, Vatican AI leaders, AI lab executives, and Silicon Valley investors who already have established connections.

Execution Strategy—Multi-Channel Engagement:

Direct Strategic Outreach: We've created influencer-specific open letters and Strategic Memo sections. For Vance, we emphasize Catholic social teaching on technology and civilization-scale responsibility. For Altman, the technical feasibility of verification mechanisms and alignment with his 2023 Senate testimony supporting international cooperation. For Bannon, framing as economic warfare prevention and American sovereignty protection.

Field Activation at AI Labs: On-the-ground presence at OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepMind headquarters (early morning and lunch time), connecting with engineers and policy staff. This creates internal pressure and identifies champions who can influence leadership. Already engaged with multiple policy officials at these organizations.

Strategic Gatherings: Oct 14 & 16 meetings in SF, Oct 23 Capitol Hill dinner, and Mar-a-Lago area events (Dec 28-Jan 9) bring together introducers, advisors, and supporters for coordination. These aren't generic fundraisers—they're operational planning sessions with specific targets.

Iterative Refinement: Version 2.0 of Strategic Memo published Sept 24. Version 2.1 will incorporate feedback from the Bay Area and DC. Version 2.2 ships post-Rome in November. Each iteration sharpens arguments based on real conversations with introducers and influencers.

Treaty Design Innovation: Our proposal includes specific mechanisms—a ultra-high-bandwidth treaty making infrastrcture and process, a time-bound "constituent assembly" process, compute-based verification systems, and economic incentives for early joiners—that address why previous tech treaties failed. This isn't aspirational; it's engineered for feasibility.

Timeline Pressure: The Trump-Xi meeting is likely to take place in late October 2025 or early 2026. We need initial influencer buy-in by the end of November to shape that conversation. ASI timelines from leading labs are 2-4 years. The window is closing in months, not years.

How Will This Funding Be Used?

SHORT ANSWER
$150k funds twelve months of intensified operations (Nov 2025-Nov 2026): $70k for lead organizer compensation, $30k for follow ups to the US Persuasion Tours (lodging and travel to SF, DC, Rome and Mar-a-Lago area, venue rentals for strategic gatherings), $25k for three specialized consultants (treaty mechanism design, China policy advisor, communications strategy), $15k for operational infrastructure (secure communications, legal/fiscal sponsor fees, website hosting), and $10k emergency reserve for time-sensitive opportunities (e.g., last-minute introducer travel to key meetings).
A bare minimum of $9,000, if contributed within 1-2 weeks, would at least enable us to buy two more months to do proper fundraising, while keeping operations going, and possibly even travel to the Mar-A-lago area in December for our direct outreach activities.

DETAILED ANSWER

Personnel (70k): Lead Organizer/Project Director - $70k (12 months): Rufo Guerreschi, full-time coordination of all influencer outreach, Strategic Memo refinement, and network activation. Already invested 1,000+ pro-bono hours building the foundation. This is the execution phase—meetings with introducers, real-time adaptation of pitch materials, and hands-on tour leadership.

Consultants and Specialized Expertise ($25k):

• Treaty Mechanism Designer ($10k): Engage more deeply our world-class technical experts on verification systems and enforcement mechanisms. Needed for credible answers when influencers ask, "how would this actually work?" Currently have pro bono support; need dedicated capacity for rapid iteration.

• China Policy Advisor ($8k): Deep expertise on Xi administration dynamics and US-China negotiation history. Critical for answering "would Xi actually agree to this?"

• Strategic Communications ($7k): Messaging refinement for different influencer worldviews. Translating technical AI safety arguments into language that resonates with Bannon vs. Pope Leo XIV vs. tech executives.

Travel and Events ($30k):

• DC Trip (Oct 21-24) - $2k: Lodging, ground transport, Oct 23 Capitol Hill dinner venue

• Rome Group Meetings (Nov 5-20) - $5k: Flights, lodging, meetings with Vatican AI leaders

• Mar-a-Lago Area (Dec 28-Jan 9) - $6k: Flights, lodging, villa event space for two strategic dinners

• Follow-up Travel (Jan-April 2026) - $10k: Quick-response trips for emergent opportunities

Operational Infrastructure ($15k):

• Secure Communications & Digital Security ($3k): Encrypted channels for sensitive influencer conversations

• Fiscal Sponsor/Legal Fees ($5k): Operating through established 501(c)(3) host organization

• Website & Digital Presence ($2k): Hosting, security certificates, CRM for introducer tracking

• Documentation & Research Tools ($3k): Access to policy databases, academic journals, and professional transcription for strategy refinement

• Office/Logistics ($2k): Temporary workspace during tours, printing materials, misc operations

Strategic Reserve ($10k): Last-minute opportunities that can't wait. Examples: Introducer identifies a 48-hour window with a Vance staffer requiring immediate travel. Key AI lab announces capability jump requiring a rapid Strategic Memo update. Pope Leo XIV schedules an unexpected US visit. Buffer for nimbleness in a fast-moving landscape.

Budget Efficiency Notes: We already have $60k prior SFF funding (spent on initial Memo development and early tour phases). This $150k request continues momentum when time is most critical—during the Q4 2025/Q1 2026 window, before Trump's China engagement hardens and ASI timelines compress further. We're also pursuing $60-400k additional SFF funding.

What we're NOT funding: No large staff. No fancy office. No broad public campaigns (we deliberately avoid "stealing thunder" from influencers who might champion this). No academic conferences. This is operational spending for direct persuasion during a narrow window.

Who Is on Your Team? What's Your Track Record on Similar Projects?

SHORT ANSWER
Lead: Rufo Guerreschi, founder of Trustless Computing Association with 15+ years in defense-grade IT security, international tech governance and policy.
Support: 20+ contributors and advisors, including advisors from UN, NSA, Yale, Princeton, World Economic Forum, and leading AI safety experts, delivering 1,600+ pro bono hours.
Track record: Previous $60k SFF grant in February 2025 successfully produced the 130-page Strategic Memo, established 50+ introducer relationships, and launched an ongoing Persuasion Tour with active engagements or confirmed meetings with OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and DC national security establishment.

DETAILED ANSWER

Core Team:

Rufo Guerreschi - Founder/Project Director

• 15+ years leading defense-grade IT security and trustless computing initiatives

• Founded the Trustless Computing Association, focused on AI verification mechanisms

• Deep networks across AI safety community, national security establishment, and tech leadership

• Spent 6 months (Feb-Sept 2025) architecting The Deal of the Century strategy with extreme rigor

20+ Exceptional Advisors & Contributors. Our team and network spans:

• UN & Multilateral Organizations: Experience in actual treaty negotiation and global governance mechanisms

• US Intelligence Community: Former NSA officials with deep China expertise and classified AI assessment access

• Elite Academia: Policy faculty from Yale, Princeton, bringing geopolitical strategy frameworks

• AI Safety Community: Leading researchers who understand both technical capabilities and risks

• Religious Leadership: Vatican AI advisors (critical for Pope Leo XIV outreach)

• World Economic Forum: Experience in public-private partnership models for technology governance

Track Record - What We've Already Delivered:

SFF Grant Performance: Received $60k in February 2025. Delivered:

• 130-page Strategic Memo (published Sept 24, 2025) - Deep psychological profiles of 8 key influencers, detailed treaty mechanisms, historical analysis

• Influencer-specific open letters tailored to each target's values and decision-making psychology

• Video case (50-minute comprehensive explanation for introducers)

• Network activation of 50+ warm introducers across the Bay Area, DC, Rome, and Florida

Current Execution - Persuasion Tour Results:

• Bay Area (Oct 3-21): Confirmed meetings with policy staff at OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind. Field engagement at headquarters, activating internal champions. Oct 14 & 16 strategic gatherings with local introducers.

• DC (Oct 21-24): Leveraging former intel community relationships for national security establishment conversations. Oct 23 Capitol Hill gathering with introducers to Vance, Rubio, Gabbard, and Sacks.

• Rome & Mar-a-Lago: Building on existing Vatican relationships and Florida networks for final tour legs.

Why This Team Can Win:

Not academic theorists - we're operators with genuine relationships to influencers and introducers. Our advisors have negotiated actual treaties, briefed presidents, and built AI systems.

Not naive optimists - our Strategy Memo includes detailed failure modes, counterfactual analysis, and specific mechanisms addressing why past attempts failed. One SFF evaluator noted: "This proposal is going for the throat, which I like."

Proven execution velocity - conceived project in January 2025, secured $60k by February, published comprehensive 130-page Strategy Memo by September, launched multi-city tour by October. We move fast when windows are narrow.

Deep domain expertise - a combination of AI technical knowledge, geopolitical strategy, psychological profiling, treaty design, and network access is extremely rare. Most AI safety advocates lack the policy chops. Most policy experts lack the technical depth. Most lack both the necessary networks and operational intensity.

What we're missing: Large organizational infrastructure (by design—we're lean and nimble). Massive credibility profile (also by design—we need influencers to get credit, not us). What we have instead: the right relationships, the right analysis, and urgency matched to the timeline.

What Are the Most Likely Causes and Outcomes If This Project Fails?

SHORT ANSWER
Failure modes: (1) Insufficient influencer coordination—we reach 1-2 influencers but lack critical mass to succeed in swaying Trump, (2) timeline failure—influencers buy in but too late for Trump's China engagement, (3) Xi non-reciprocation—Trump moves but China doesn't follow, (4) alternative AI governance efforts—unilateral US approaches or weak international frameworks preempt bolder treaty options.
Outcomes if we fail: US-China AI arms race accelerates, ASI development proceeds uncontrolled with 10-90% extinction risk (per leading researchers) in 1-5 years, or authoritarian AI lock-in concentrates global power permanently.
But even partial success matters: Moving even 1-2 influencers toward treaty thinking shifts the Overton window and creates infrastructure for future attempts.

DETAILED ANSWER

Failure Mode #1: Insufficient Critical Mass Probability: 40%

We reach 1-2 influencers (e.g., Altman and Rogan becomes privately supportive) but fail to activate the 3-4 needed for Trump to take it seriously. Trump responds to consensus among his trusted circle, not individual voices.

Mitigation: Shotgun approach across multiple influencer types (tech, political, religious, media). If Altman doesn't bite, we pivot harder to Bannon + Pope + Vance combination. Our Strategic Memo has tailored pitches for eight different profiles precisely because we can't predict who will move first.

Failure Mode #2: Timeline Miss Probability: 35%

Influencers eventually buy in but after Trump's China meeting concludes or ASI capabilities accelerate past governable stage. Our window is narrow—Trump-Xi engagement likely Oct/Nov 2025, and AI labs are racing toward superintelligence with 2-4 year timelines.

Mitigation: We're already executing (mid-tour now). $150k continues momentum without fundraising distraction. Pre-positioned introducers mean we're not building networks from scratch. Strategic Reserve budget line enables rapid response to emerging opportunities.

Failure Mode #3: China Non-Reciprocation Probability: 25%

Trump moves but Xi doesn't follow, or demands terms unacceptable to US (e.g., tech transfer requirements, abandoning Taiwan commitments). Our whole theory requires US-China co-leadership.

Mitigation: Our Strategic Memo includes detailed analysis of Xi's incentives—China's current AI lag, domestic unemployment pressures from automation, vulnerability to being shut out of Western AI supply chains. We argue Xi has strong reasons to engage if approached properly. But this remains an uncertainty we can't fully control.

Failure Mode #4: Alternative Approaches Preempt Probability: 20%

US pursues unilateral AI advantage strategy OR weak international frameworks (all talk, no enforcement) get announced first and crowd out appetite for bolder approaches. Bureaucratic momentum behind inadequate solutions is high.

Mitigation: We frame this as complementary to American AI dominance, not opposed to it. "Peace through strength" means leveraging the US lead to lock in advantages via a treaty. Weak frameworks actually make our case stronger—they'll be seen to fail, creating demand for real solutions.

What Happens If We Fail:

Most likely world: Uncontrolled ASI race - US and China sprint toward superintelligence without coordination. Leading AI researchers (including Hinton, Bengio, Russell) estimate 10-90% extinction risk from unaligned ASI. Even "merely" catastrophic scenarios involve massive power concentration, technological unemployment, or authoritarian lock-in.

Alternative bad outcome: China AI hegemony - If China achieves ASI first, permanent authoritarian advantage. Xi's government already uses AI for surveillance and control. ASI-enabled authoritarianism could be impossible to dislodge.

Why Even Partial Success Matters:

Overton window shift - Even if Trump doesn't fully embrace this, we're moving elite conversation from "AI regulation" to "global AI treaty." That's essential groundwork.

Infrastructure for future attempts - The relationships, analysis, and mechanisms we're building don't expire if Trump doesn't act. Next president, next crisis, next window—we've built the playbook.

Internal AI lab pressure - Field engagement with OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind engineers creates internal champions who may influence leadership even without Trump action.

Risk reduction at the margin - If we delay ASI by 6 months while other safety work progresses, that's enormous value. If we shift 2% of the probability toward the treaty path, the expected value is astronomical, given the stakes.

Base rate we should beat: Baruch Plan in 1946 nearly succeeded despite worse geopolitical conditions (hot war just ended vs. cold war). With better treaty design and lessons learned, our odds should exceed theirs. Even a 10-20% success probability on preventing extinction-level risks justifies the attempt.

How Much Money Have You Raised in the Last 12 Months, and from Where?

SHORT ANSWER
Total raised: $67,500. Primary funding: $60,000 Survival and Flourishing Fund (SFF) Speculation Grant in February 2025, founded by Jaan Tallinn. Additional: $2,500 from two individual donors, plus $5,000 bridge loan (personal funds) to enable the US Persuasion Tour launch before this funding is secured. We applied on Oct 14th for an additional $60-400k SFF grant. Operated entirely volunteer-based until February 2025; all prior funding spent on Strategic Memo development, writing retreats in Italy, partial lead organizer compensation, and Persuasion Tour infrastructure.

DETAILED ANSWER

Primary Funder: Survival and Flourishing Fund

• $60,000 Speculation Grant - February 2025 SFF was founded by Jaan Tallinn (Skype co-founder, leading AI safety philanthropist). Focus on existential risk reduction and civilization-scale challenges. One SFF evaluator's feedback: "This proposal is going for the throat, which I like". SFF also supports organizations like Future of Humanity Institute, AI Impacts, and other longtermist initiatives

How February 2025 SFF Grant Was Spent:

• $35,000 - Partial compensation for lead organizer Rufo Guerreschi's full-time work (6 months)

• $14,000 - Consultant fees and venue for three week-long writing sprints in Trevignano Romano, Italy, to draft Strategic Memo with contributors.

• $5,000 - Initial US Persuasion Tour travel (flights, ground transport)

• $6,000 - Overhead, office services, secure communications, website hosting

Bridge Funding to Continue Operations:

• $2,500 - Two individual donors (September 2025) for tour expenses

• $5,000 - Personal bridge loan from Rufo to cover tour launch costs while awaiting funding decisions

Current Funding Applications:

• $60k SFF Grant - Submitted today (Oct 14, 2025) for continued operations

• $150k Manifund - This application

• Several other prospects are being explored (Open Philanthropy reached out previously but timing was before the Strategic Memo publication)

Previous Unsuccessful Approaches: In early September 2025, applications to SFF, Manifund, Open Philanthropy, and others were declined or received no response—but our Strategic Memo had not yet been published, and the website had not been updated. Timing was wrong. Now that we have completed a 130-page Memo and an active tour demonstrating execution, we're repositioned for funding success.

Why Funding Now vs. Earlier: Operated volunteer-only until February 2025 because the strategic analysis required time to get right. Can't rush deep influencer psychological profiling, treaty mechanism design, and historical case analysis. The $60k enabled us to do that work properly. Now we're in the execution phase—the Memo is done, relationships are activated, and we need sustained operations through the critical Q4 2025/Q1 2026 window.

Funding Diversification Strategy: Not putting all eggs in one basket. Pursuing SFF (known supporter), Manifund (aligned community), and building an individual donor base through Mar-a-Lago area events. If we get either SFF and Manifund, we have an 18-month runway without distraction. If only one, we can still execute for 12 months with tighter margins.

Burn Rate Context: $150k over 12 months = ~$12.5k/month average. Extremely lean for this type of high-stakes advocacy. For comparison, typical DC policy shops spend $ 50,000- $100,000 per month. We're 10x more capital efficient because we're operator-led, not administrator-heavy, and leverage pro bono advisor time extensively.