Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Kyle]

Micro-contributor non-profit proposal (The slightly more fleshed out version.)
Therefore, in order to address the previous posts questions, I propose that FFS consider the following:
I. Emphasize raising monies through tax-deductible donations from many, small contributors in order to fund a (multiple) grant(s) to promising technologies that will further the mission of the organization.
a. Expand ‘contributor’ member list for the purpose of funding research grants and covering operating expenses. (Huge emphasis on the former—FFS would want to be a non-profit where 90+% of donations went directly to ‘the cause’.)
i. Develop the ‘marketing plan’ (I don’t like that name, as it is too “for-profit oriented” and buzz word sounding, but that is what it is.)
1. Online
a. Establish an “onboarding” process by which FFS welcomes new members and encourages their participation in discussions (details to be developed by FFS and vetted by current members in another string)
b. Identify one or two established “parent-figure” personalities from existing members to own the above onboarding process for new members
2. Drive new members to the FFS community
a. Viral posts to drive eyeballs
b. Partnerships with appropriate organizations or blogs
c. Etc.
3. Mail campaigns?
b. Increase internet “fun-item” sales (I think the t-shirts and etc are great)
i. Details on this to be developed and vetted
c. Establish a board of directors and/or board of advisors for FFS composed of three types of members:
i. 3-5 Serious science types;
1. Bring the gravitas and technical weight to FFS
ii. 3-5 Wow factor types;
1.Household names that bring ‘sex appeal’ and bring weight for fundraising pushes for particular projects
iii. 5-8 Serious business/money types
1. These individuals would be expected to bring, personally or through their network, certain funding levels to FFS (say $50,000/year).
d. Consider hosting one or several events throughout the year for presenting the progress and current understanding in alternative fusion physics approaches; these events would focus on both the science and the business, but emphasize the science.
i.These kinds of functions can be great revenue streams for non-profit organizations from both the conference fees and new members’ donations from conference attendees, but only if a good theme and presenters are constructed.
ii.One of these might be an evening event with ‘big fish’ philanthropy types, an attraction presentation (like The Canadian Brass play for a dance night, or a Hollywood comedian type does a stand-up, etc), and Eric Lerner giving the “look at what we are doing now and with your contribution this evening, we will solve world hunger!” presentation. (Well, “solving world hunger” might be a bit of an oversell, but you get the point. 😉 )
iii. Another might be a more serious industry conference with science papers being presented.
II. Consider adding a secondary objective to FFS’ mission: to provide funding for substantive science that advances the common good. (or some such language)
a. In this discussion, we could potentially address a significant gap in current science research funding between government grants and private, for-profit funding.
i. To potentially include a more social sciences discussion around: why would we, as a society, want the generation of power to be conducted by for profit businesses? (Like Enron: enough said, imo.)
ii. This also allows for using the social benefits derived from the research to drive interest in and contributions for FFS and the DPF
b. This second discussion is related, but not directly to point; for that reason and the one below I will leave a more detailed conversation here to another string.
III. This post has already gone WAY too long and many of you may not read this far, so I will curtail additional ideas; suffice to say that I think you get the idea around the proposal. (Questions or thoughts/reactions always welcomed, of course. 😉 )

The one outstanding question I have is: why not fund LPP’s phase II through a more traditional angel or venture capital round of financing? (I suspect that the answer here has something to do with a combination of: too much risk (too early in the research/engineering phase) for most funding sources; and too little is known, even by specialty energy VC firms, of fusion that is aneutronic—and what is known about fusion is that it is very risky, VERY expensive, not well understood by scientists, and has long development times. To summarize: I think VC firms will feel unable to properly conduct their due diligence and risk assessments prior to considering an investment. Eric would be the best source for anecdotal insight to this question, I think.)