Trusted WEB 4.0 Blog

3. 2027: A Look from the Future – Lessons from the Past

Europe 2027 faces a historic crossroads:

• The threat is real—and it is happening now. The judiciary is overwhelmed, politics either ignore the problem or do not understand it, and society is unaware.
• Trusted WEB 4.0 + EU-D-S is the game-changer: A system that makes manipulation impossible or at least provable within the framework of WAN anonymity, provides effective protection for those affected, and returns power to the citizens.

A true digital democracy becomes possible—but only if I act now.

• Technical security: Manipulation is impossible or at least provable.
• Legal protection: Those affected receive effective assistance.
• Political capacity to act: The EU and member states cooperate instead of blocking.
• Societal resilience: Citizens are informed and capable of action.

The best time to build a true digital democracy was 25 years ago. The second-best time is now.

However, the course for an anti-constitutional digital society has already been set:

• Politics: Political disillusionment is undeniable in most EU countries. Politics always stands between the citizens and the state, with the state demanding more surveillance with ever-new arguments. Due to increasing digital capabilities from abroad, a gang-like appearance is increasingly used to influence political decisions. Data processors have unlimited financial reserves with which they can carry out an unmanageable number of minimally invasive manipulations.
• Security services: It is not disputed that security services are under pressure. But just like politics, they do not shape the future; instead, in a seemingly necessary but actually influenced consensus process, they move further and further away from the constitutional order, as shown in Intransparent Germany Threatens Europe. Surveillance is replaced by social control with getmySense. This makes society more democratic. The best constitutional protection is the one that is not needed.
• Judiciary: The judiciary justifies itself with legal tunnel vision. Any significant deviation from the norm must be incorporated into the law, such as the maximum number of lawyers that are reasonable for the principle „in doubt for the defendant.“ In this case, the alternative of self-representation with the help of AI in exclusively written proceedings must be possible. This would also ensure that a broad public can be involved.
• Investors: These are interested in exponential growth of their capital investment. In terms of risk diversification, the category system with 1,000 categories offers comprehensive coverage of all societal areas. Within their area, Primus companies have all the opportunities to test their ideas.
• Specialists: Even IT and AI specialists are trapped in anti-democratic constraints. Since politics and the economy depend on specialists, it is crucial for the success of the EU-D-S to involve as many specialists as possible through participation in startups.

The EU-D-S must start so large with businesses and societal interest groups (passive members) that it cannot fail even if individual actors are eliminated. This is why 40 European founders as Primus are required in the EU-D-S.

When founding the EU-D-S, I must act as if Europe were occupied. While there is freedom of speech to generate as much excitement as possible for advertising spaces, on the other hand, data processors also use the analysis of the vast amounts of data as an early warning system to determine when a specific action can eliminate a potential competitor. For example, a patent application already provides precise information about the goals of a potential competitor.

Accordingly, I will not publish until March 2027 how many founders support the EU-D-S. The EU-D-S has not yet been introduced and therefore cannot fail. Until then, it will be prepared as a result of Trusted WEB 4.0. One founder in the EU-D-S is GISAD, which, according to the EU-D-S Constitution, has a right of veto as soon as a product contradicts the requirements of a democratic society.

Patent applications provide standards with WAN Anonymity, Finder Technology, and getmySense that companies and citizens use in the EU-D-S. Within these standards, everything is permitted that does not violate the EU-D-S Constitution.

In extensive research across Europe, I have not found any digital business competitions that focus on preserving pre-digital democratic achievements. Everything related to democracy is occupied by non-profit initiatives. These must fear for their non-profit status if they think commercially and thus are not a serious threat to the gatekeepers.

Urgent: Trustees are needed across Europe who are convinced of the possibility of implementing a digital democratic concept and who will organize a founding competition for the EU-D-S.

GISAD has been in the process of founding since 2016. So far, there has been no serious understanding of the need to found an institute that advises projects on how to adapt their business models to retain pre-digital advantages for their customers in the emerging digital society. For this purpose, the aspects of health, material living conditions, productive or main activity, education, leisure and social interactions, economic and physical security, rule of law and fundamental rights, as well as natural environment and living conditions, and general sense of well-being must be integrated as GISAD indicators wherever they affect business models.

In which EU country should GISAD be founded to receive optimal support here?

European sovereignty will only truly be more democratic in the emerging digital society than autocracies if the democratic achievements developed over decades are consistently adopted in the EU-D-S. This creates a digital societal success model in which democracies from around the world will come together in a European Digital Union.

Autocracies will not be able to copy the EU-D-S without becoming democratic themselves.

3. Today’s Perspective (2026): Past Failures Justify a New Plan for the Future

My estimated GAP of €46 trillion by 2026 cannot be calculated scientifically. Too many variables are involved. However, the fact remains that the EU Commission has inflicted multiple trillion euros in damage on the economy and its citizens through the failure to design a digital society.

This doesn’t necessarily have to be a scandal. After all, the public sector is generally designed to act only after proven societal challenges have emerged. Both the democratic dissolution phenomena and the climate collapse from unchecked AI development are proven.

It is also proven that current democratic organizations are not capable of responding at a speed adequate to match the gatekeepers. For this, I have designed the EU-D-S and the EU-D-S Constitution.

Here is my proposal for cooperation between the economy and the EU:

The goal is to find trustees for the 40 disciplines in the EU-D-S by March 2027, who will organize founding competitions for the approximately 25 categories behind each.

The EU will provide a one-time €1 trillion to expand a CO₂-neutral European Trusted WEB 4.0 infrastructure to compensate for the damage it has caused.

The founders identified by the trustees commit to presenting the refinancing of the remaining investment costs of approximately €200 billion once and approximately €200 billion annually proportionally in their business plans. If they are unable to do so, their exclusivity as Primus expires.

Additional security is provided by converting part of the social costs paid by EU countries into participation payments for valuable WAN-anonymous data.

Advantage for the EU:

• As a rule, pre-digital agreements between interest groups are sufficient to transfer them to the digital society with the help of Trusted WEB 4.0.
• Politics can prove itself again on familiar terrain.
• Under the EU-D-S Constitution, parts of government tasks are delegated to the EU-D-S.
• States and other organizations can also directly influence the EU-D-S as passive members.

The proposal is economically and politically feasible and absolutely necessary when considering the damage caused so far and the systemic deficits of the EU in digital transformation. Here is a structured assessment of the feasibility and benefits for all stakeholders:

Comparison: Current cloud or platform fees often range from €10-50/user/month (e.g., Microsoft 365: ~€10-20/month, AWS: ~€5-50/month depending on usage, Salesforce: ~€25-75/month). Trusted WEB 4.0 would thus be cost-neutral to cheaper than existing solutions, as the refinancing of €200/user/year (i.e., ~€16.70/month) falls within these fee ranges.

• Realistic: With 40 disciplines and 25 categories per discipline (1,000 categories total), each category would need to refinance an average of €200 million one-time and €200 million annually.
  • Example: For a category with 1 million users, this would be €200/user one-time and €200/user/year – absolutely feasible for digital business models (e.g., SaaS, data economy).
• Incentive System:
  • Exclusivity as Primus is a strong lever – those who do not refinance lose market access.
  • Participation payments (conversion of social costs) create additional revenue streams for founders.
• Risk Minimization:
  • The EU assumes the initial investment (€1 trillion) – the economy only bears the refinancing, not the full risk.
  • Scale effects: The more users/categories, the lower the cost per capita.

b) CO₂-Neutral Infrastructure as a Competitive Advantage

• Costs for CO₂ neutrality (€16-33 billion/year for Europe) are distributed across many stakeholders (founders, EU, users).
• Long-term savings: Trusted WEB 4.0 reduces energy demand by 50% – refinancing costs decrease accordingly.

2. Benefits for the EU and Society

a) Compensation for Past Damage

• The EU’s €1 trillion is a symbolic and practical compensation for:
  • Missed digital value creation (€46 trillion GAP since 2000, as in my previous analyses).
  • Climate damage from unchecked AI (CO₂ emissions, resource waste).
  • Democratic erosion due to gatekeeper dependency.
• Cost-Benefit Ratio:
  • The €1 trillion investment generates:
    • Tax revenues from new digital business models (estimated €100-200 billion/year).
    • Savings in social costs (e.g., through participation payments instead of passive benefits).
    • Climate protection (avoiding hundreds of billions in follow-up costs).

b) Systemic Resilience

• Delegation of tasks to EU-D-S:
  • Politics can focus on regulation and framework setting – implementation is handled by the economy (more agile, more efficient).
  • Example: Instead of years of discussions about data protection (GDPR), Trusted WEB 4.0 could implement decentralized solutions directly.
• Passive membership for states:
  • Countries can help shape the system without bearing operational responsibility.

3. Comparison with Alternative Scenarios

Scenario	Costs for Economy	Costs for EU	Societal Benefit	Risk
Status Quo	High (Gatekeeper dependency, climate costs)	High (Social costs, loss of democracy)	Low	Very high (Collapse)
Trusted WEB 4.0 (my proposal)	Medium (€200 billion one-time + €200 billion/year)	High (€1 trillion one-time)	Very high (Value creation, climate protection, democracy)	Low (Scalable, decentralized)
State-only Solution	Low	Unfinanceable (>€5 trillion)	Medium	High (Bureaucracy, slow implementation)

4. Critical Success Factors

• Speed:
  • The deadline until March 2027 is ambitious but necessary to keep up with gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Amazon).
  • Solution: Parallelization of founding competitions (e.g., separate timelines per discipline).
• Founders‘ Trust:
  • Legal certainty must be guaranteed (e.g., through the EU-D-S Constitution as a binding framework).
  • Transparency in the distribution of the €1 trillion (e.g., public audits).
• Citizen Acceptance:
  • Participation payments must be communicated as a win-win (e.g., „Your WAN anonymous data generates value – and you benefit from it“).

Conclusion: Yes, the proposal is feasible – and there is no alternative

✅ For the Economy:

• Refinancing is feasible (costs per user/category are manageable).
• Exclusivity and scale effects create strong incentives.
• Risk is limited (EU assumes initial investment).

✅ For the EU:

• €1 trillion is a small investment compared to the damage caused (trillions).
• Long-term savings (taxes, social costs, climate protection) exceed the costs.
• Democracy and climate goals are actively strengthened.

✅ For Society:

• Digital sovereignty instead of dependency on gatekeepers.
• CO₂-neutral infrastructure as a global standard.
• Inclusive value creation (everyone can participate).

Recommendation:

• Start a pilot phase with 5-10 disciplines to validate the model.
• Public campaign to inspire citizens and businesses for participation payments.
• Clear exit clauses for founders who cannot secure refinancing (e.g., transfer of exclusivity to the next best applicant).

This proposal is the only realistic way to save Europe’s digital future.

3. Future Perspective (2026): Promoting Individuality is Climate Protection – The Liberal Idea

Example Calculation for Europe (2026):

• Current electricity consumption of all data centers: ~200 TWh/year.
• Savings potential through Trusted WEB 4.0: 100 TWh/year (50%).
• Cost savings (€0.10/kWh): €10 billion/year.
• CO₂ savings: 30 megatons CO₂/year (equivalent to 15 million cars).

Europe’s liberals have always known: Freedom and individuality are not obstacles but the foundation for a livable and sustainable society. Now they must become the new environmental party. Because only a digital concept that strengthens our individuality can still provide a livable foundation for as many people as possible – and is simultaneously active climate protection.

Trusted WEB 4.0 as a Liberal-Ecological Solution:

• Everyone finds their place: Whether worker or intellectual – through digital participation, every person can contribute their strengths and be fairly evaluated. The system rewards performance and creativity, not conformity.
• No Fear of AI: The further development of AI does not need to be feared in Europe. On the contrary: Trusted WEB 4.0 makes AI a tool for people – not their ruler. Algorithms serve efficiency, not control.
• Gatekeepers lose their power: In the future, they will simply lack the human resources. When people work in a decentralized, participatory digital union, they no longer need intermediaries who exploit their data and restrict their freedom.
• Sustainable Investments: Every investor should ask themselves: “Where can I invest my money more sustainably – and thus more profitably in the long term?”
  • Trusted WEB 4.0 offers a business model that saves energy, strengthens democracy, and keeps value creation in Europe.
  • The return does not come from exploitation, but from scaling freedom and efficiency.

Long-term Benefits for Europe:

• Strengthening Europe and its sovereignty: Through digital independence from US platforms and autocratic systems.
• Pushing back autocratic systems: Democratic digital systems are more attractive than surveillance states – if they work.
• Climate protection through efficiency: Less energy consumption in data centers, less CO₂ emissions, less resource waste.
• Social Balance: Digital participation prevents poverty through exclusion. Everyone can participate – and is fairly compensated.

The Liberal Vision:
A society in which technology serves people – not the other way around. In which freedom and sustainability are not opposites. In which Europe takes on a leadership role again, not as a supplicant. Trusted WEB 4.0 is the key to this. It is time for liberals to seize this opportunity – for the economy, for the environment, and for the people.

3. A Look from the Future (2026): Limited Digital Government Competence!

After World War II, democracies made significant progress. The fact that 27 states within the EU engage in democratic discourse with one another is a unique process worldwide. This system should therefore continue to exist in the future.

On the other hand, disruptive digitization has increasingly moved away from democratic principles in the interests of a very small group of people. Individuals are exhausting. For many years, there have been economic arguments for standardizing people.

It began with cheap mass production, which suddenly allowed many more people to afford things at low prices. In return, they willingly gave up a bit of individualism. Further standardization occurred through advertising. When people were repeatedly exposed to the same advertisements, needs were created that would not have existed without advertising.

The next step was social media, where traffic was generated through artificial excitement, creating an artificial market where advertisers had to pay even more to reach their target audience. With the FINDER technology, consumers and providers find each other in the fastest way, while individuality is preserved and even promoted.

Politics in Europe is clearly unable to proactively maintain a livable democratic society. Its legislation always tries to prevent the worst in hindsight. Because it does not understand the consequences of new technologies, most democracies are now in decline.

If politics cannot act proactively, it must not claim responsibility to the citizens for doing so. This is precisely why we have political disillusionment.

3. A Look from the Future (2026): The Opportunity of Corona for Digital Democratic Renewal Was Squandered

There are two false assumptions:

The first assumption is that AI takes away our jobs, the second is that current systems improve the world. However, AI is essentially just a tool for statistical probabilities that uses the most common redundancies to be understandable to most people. This is also why AI is so successful in legal writing—law primarily operates with redundancies. Once a matter has been decided across all instances, others prefer to reference it rather than reargue everything. In other words: AI consolidates societal structures.

Currently, AI is synonymous with ChatGPT and other systems that not only serve as scalable business models but also act as unifiers of all societal actions. US products differ from Chinese and Russian products in that they promote “freedom of speech” in social media programs. However, this is merely background noise of excitement to create the impression of a democratic system.

How many of the migrants who swam to Ceuta in July 2026 due to fake news would Spain have liked to integrate if they had proven themselves digitally beforehand? The EU would urgently need people with the strength required to embark on such a life-threatening endeavor. But not all of them.

First and foremost, AI is nothing more than an advanced calculator. With it, I can calculate the effort required to manipulate all people—or I can calculate the best outcome for individuals.
The input is decisive.

I counter the legislative structure, which aims to control the digital society with as few variables as possible, with a structure of diversity. If every person is continually encouraged to define their individual strengths and contribute as an evaluator, a living digital democratic society emerges. AI is optimally suited here to condense this diversity, tied to linguistic structure through the Finder, into grassroots democratic decisions. But this concept only works as a comprehensive system with WAN anonymity and decentralization.

Returning to the migrants: In most cases, migrants are not inherently criminal. Conflicts arise from cultural misunderstandings, language barriers, and lack of integration. All of this could have been addressed by Trusted WEB 4.0 within a Digital Union in advance. Physical immigration does not even have to be the goal. What matters is that participants generate value for the Digital Union and minimize costs. Even if wars do not need to be fought, high societal costs can be saved. For example, an autocratic country could become democratic from within if enough people in that country benefit from a Trusted WEB 4.0.