I'm an independent researcher with no PhD, no institutional backing, and 39 provisional patents protecting a protocol that implements your d/acc philosophy for distributed intelligence. I've now spent nearly 3,000 hours since June 2025 and invested everything I have into building something I believe you'll recognize immediately.
I'm not asking for endorsement. I'm asking you to check the math.
What I Built
The QIS Protocol (Quadratic Intelligence Swarm) enables distributed agents to share insight—not data, not model parameters, just outcomes—and achieve intelligence scaling that grows quadratically while communication costs stay logarithmic.
N agents create N(N-1)/2 unique synthesis opportunities. Each agent pays O(log N) communication cost. No central coordinator. No data centralization. No gatekeeper.
When I read your "d/acc: one year later" essay in January 2025, I realized I had built what you were describing—before I knew the framework had a name. QIS is d/acc for intelligence.
How QIS Implements d/acc
You defined d/acc as "decentralized and democratic differential defensive acceleration." Here's how QIS maps to each pillar:
d/acc → QIS Protocol Mapping
The Mathematical Connection You'll Recognize
In 2018, you co-authored "Liberal Radicalism" with Zoë Hitzig and Glen Weyl, introducing quadratic funding. The core insight: pairwise interactions between contributors create superlinear value. Small contributions matter because they create matching opportunities.
I discovered the same mathematical principle applies to distributed intelligence.
Contributors → Matching Value
Agents → Synthesis Opportunities
Quadratic funding democratizes resource allocation. QIS democratizes intelligence. Both use pairwise interactions to create value that scales superlinearly from distributed participation.
You wrote that quadratic mechanisms "allow for optimal provision of a decentralized, self-organizing ecosystem." That's exactly what QIS does—but for knowledge instead of capital.
Applications You've Called For
In your d/acc writings, you've specifically mentioned several defensive technology priorities. QIS addresses them directly:
Pandemic Preparedness
Distributed edge nodes detecting emerging patterns before centralized surveillance could. No government controls the data. Real-time, privacy-preserving disease surveillance. Pick your edge.
Biodefense
Hospitals synthesizing treatment outcomes without sharing patient records. Early sepsis detection. Real-time drug monitoring and treatment optimization with quadratic insight.
Information Defense
Pattern verification across distributed sources. No single point of narrative control. Collective intelligence that's resistant to manipulation.
AI Safety
Distributed intelligence that doesn't concentrate power. No single entity controls the output—the output is what's working right now for everyone with your problem. The winners are the ones saving the most lives. Darwinism for intelligence networks—see how.
You wrote: "Build technologies that shift the offense/defense balance toward defense, and do so in a way that does not rely on handing over more power to centralized authorities."
That's QIS. Exactly.
Why I'm Writing to You
"I see far too many plans to save the world that involve giving a small group of people extreme and opaque power and hoping that they use it wisely."
I agree completely. QIS has no central authority, no trusted coordinator, no opaque power concentration—not because I designed it that way, but because the scaling law demands it. The math is public. The architecture is transparent. The protocol is verifiable.
But I've hit the same walls you've written about: institutional gatekeeping that evaluates credentials over mathematics. arXiv requires endorsement I can't get. bioRxiv rejected the paper without review. Investors asked about my background, not my proofs. Every door, every corner, every attempt—"What's your affiliation? Where did you go to school?" Never "Is the math correct?"
You've built your platform by creating things that work and letting the math speak. I'm trying to do the same. I believe QIS is the technical implementation of d/acc for distributed intelligence—and I believe you're one of the few people who will immediately understand why.
What I'm Asking
I'm not asking for investment or endorsement. I'm asking for something simpler:
- Check the math. The N(N-1)/2 scaling proof is verifiable. The O(log N) routing complexity is standard DHT theory. The architecture is documented.
- If I'm wrong, tell me where. I've published everything. Point out the flaw.
- If I'm right, consider whether this is worth building. Not by me alone—by the ecosystem of d/acc builders you've inspired.
Any person on Earth—helping humans or animals for any use case, or pursuing research or education—without a profit motive, gets full access today. I will write them the reference implementation for their exact use case myself. The patents exist so this doesn't become a first-world fix—so the people who need it most actually get it. Commercial users fund humanitarian deployment to all the places that would otherwise never see QIS. This is for everyone, and the licensing strategy guarantees that. Open source saves code. This saves lives.
You've warned about the "High Priest" problem—protocols so complex that users must trust a small class of experts to explain what guarantees they actually provide. QIS is the opposite. The core idea fits in one sentence: share survival outcomes, route semantically, synthesize locally. No PhD required to verify. No priesthood to trust. Here's the entire system—anyone can build it. If you can define similarity for your problem, and insight exists elsewhere and is aggregatable to an edge node—I can write you an implementation. Anyone can, once you understand the flip.
I believe QIS is the d/acc implementation for distributed intelligence. I believe the world needs it. I believe you'll understand why.
Check the math. Prove me wrong or help me build it.
Thank you for your time.
Founder, Yonder Zenith LLC
Inventor, QIS Protocol
39 Provisional Patents Pending
"From coughs to crops to cars—the survival of one becomes the survival of all."