Perhaps it's not as much a case of why the one person, one vote rule is good for funding of unpredictable R&D⁺. Perhaps it's more a case of how bad the one share, one vote rule can be.

We will be much stronger and more successful by banding together as a community. Individual investments leverage the reputation of the whole, and a community is not overly burdened by the shortcomings of the few.

This is not your daddy's business model. We do our damnedest to keep rules in the funding agency⁺ to a minimum. This is consistent with the fact that the rules have yet to be written for the Phase 1 industrial⁺ firms into which we are investing.

We allow investors to come and go. They need a share price to buy and sell. Share prices are regularly updated and accessible for rational analysis by investors and investees alike.

Reflection-in-action⁺ is a teaching approach perfect for Phase 1 industries⁺, where the rules have not yet been written. It has two key aspects: learning by doing and teaching students to delight in unexpected insights.

Project milestones, as practiced in today's industries, are destructive of creativity. We abandon this practice and replace it with an independent evaluation⁺ of team effectiveness.

We reduce the likelihood of a financial meltdown by borrowing insights from the field of engineering.

Intellectual Capital⁺ is much more than any of its physical manifestations (e.g., patents, trademarks). It’s greatest wealth is found mostly in the minds of its creators. We exploit this wealth by packaging those minds into Investible Units⁺, which in turn are packaged into a community of Investible Units.

Systemic risks are those that can bankrupt the funding agency⁺. Their causes are often perfectly unpredictable (i.e., perfect storms). We can't foresee all these risks, so we set up the agency so it can better weather the storm when they arrive.

Rigorously controlled scientific experiments often do not stand the test of time. Even interocular⁺ results are later found to be not replicable.

Our belief is we can (dramatically) lower our cost of capital by making it easier for investors to come and go. We set prices for buy-sell transactions that are steady and predictable. This provides investors with assurances of a ready market when they are ready to sell.

We frequently use the phrase results that stand the test of time. Here are the details.

Effectiveness in industrial R&D is as much driven from the way in which it is funded as from the way in which it is executed. Here we review the funding needs.

An expanded version of the patent application for Franchise Capital Management, a new approach to funding R&D

Unambiguous measures are few and far between – investor exit interviews are one of these measures and we learn to cherish them.

Why retail investors are preferable to institutional investors

We’ll plow close to 20% of winnings back into franchise operations with the intent of making R&D investments more successful. We do this without meddling into the affairs of the investment.

I’ve seen steady share price increases that have spanned decades and weathered many recessions. There was one woman in charge for 30+ years.

You need to think differently about money to better appreciate the unconventional approaches taken on this website.

Venture capital sells out at the first sign of success. We insist on staying through to successful completion of the research. Here’s why.

You can’t just take half the recommendations: how research is funded is just as important as how it is executed when it comes to success.

We bundle research investments into a single perpetual fund⁺. Here’s what’s different from how that approach is used today.

We insist on blockbuster potential as our measure of success. It’s unambiguous and eliminates many otherwise bothersome details.