Kategorie: The real Trillion Euro GAP

The study „Promoting a Digital Democratic Society: A Comparison of the Approaches of Business and Non-Profit Projects in the Context of the EU-D-S Constitution“ shows that non-profit projects such as Offene Netzwerke e.V., Bündnis Offene Netzwerke und demokratische Öffentlichkeiten, and Offene Netze do make important contributions, but without economic diversity and market mechanisms they cannot sustainably hold their own against the gatekeepers.
Without the EU-D-S, the legal safeguards needed to prevent digital autocracy are missing.

1. Probable Scenario without Trusted WEB 4.0 for 2032

In Europe there are projects that seek to preserve the pre-digital democratic achievements in the digital society. The fallacy of these initiatives is that in a system driven solely by politics there will be no rule of law.
Without Trusted WEB 4.0 and the EU-D-S, the legal and economic foundation needed to withstand the dominance of the gatekeepers is missing.

Non-profit digital projects cannot defend themselves without capitalization comparable to that of the gatekeepers. The assumption that good work is enough is a fallacy:
Good work is characterized precisely by the fact that it represents a potential threat to the gatekeepers. Even a large number of members does not protect against being eliminated by digital authoritarian means. Infiltration and remote control are even easier, as has been suspected in the state of NRW since 2001.

In this context, the rule of law means: If every lawyer can be eliminated by forces hostile to the constitution, that no longer has anything to do with a state under the rule of law.
Digital autocracy and censorship are today a gang-like phenomenon.

2. Development with Broad European Support since 2027

Non-profit projects as passive members in the EU-D-S have been protected since 2027 by active members who together are strong enough to stand up to the gatekeepers. Through the Council of Disciplines and GISAD, it is ensured that non-profit projects can exert sufficient influence on the economy. They have not had this opportunity before.

The study shows that a combination of economic diversity and non-profit projects could increase the sustainability and impact of promoting digital democracy.

Non-profit projects can compensate for their reduced ability to shape things as passive members by being trustees of disciplines that are important to them. Here they have the opportunity to organize founding competitions and thereby exert direct influence on the selection of the active members.

—

The EU needs skilled workers and is becoming an active immigration country. Through getmySense, cross-lingual groups of like-minded people are emerging. In a first step, European sponsors – digitally, where possible – can pass on work assignments to non-Europeans. Long-term digital remote work relationships can develop, or the sponsors provide a qualified recommendation to the immigration authority of their country and thus share in the responsibility that integration into the EU succeeds.

Note: This blog post is based on the study „2031 – Digital European Sovereignty Requires a Holistic Concept That Is Understood and Actively Supported by a Majority“ – to the full study.

---

1. Probable Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0 for 2031

The consequences of a missing Trusted WEB 4.0 will become visible in 2031: The European economy is on the verge of collapse. Particularly affected are democracy-preserving economic organisations such as cooperatives, since every company – whether in valuation, taking out loans for growth, or selling company shares – depends on the capital market.

Without Trusted WEB 4.0, a resilient digital infrastructure is missing that would have:

• Improved market liquidity through transparency and integration of the EU capital market (e.g. by reducing fragmentation by up to 50 basis points in capital costs).
• Increased investor interest through a reduced domestic bias and enhanced diversification within Europe.
• Created regulatory clarity for Primus partners in order to strengthen strategic partnerships and market positions.
• Promoted innovation financing through more efficient capital allocation – especially for AI and blockchain projects.

Recommendations for Action for 2031

Since the EU-D-S will be introduced from March 2027, I am focussing on the further development and scaling of the system. The following measures are crucial:

1. Regulatory adjustment: Continuous coordination between EU member states in order to avoid fragmentation and secure the acceptance of the EU-D-S in all European capital markets.
2. Technological integration: The EU-D-S must remain compatible with AI, blockchain and autonomous systems in order to keep pace with global standards.
3. Strategic partnerships: Strengthening the cooperation between Primus partners in order to increase competitiveness against US gatekeepers.
4. Citizen participation: Awareness campaigns to promote the use of the EU-D-S by citizens, companies and institutions.

Crucial in this context is an understanding of the division of roles: According to the EU-D-S constitution, organisations – and thus also the EU – can be passive members. Passive members do not decide directly on technical concepts, but they are equal members on general questions of the respective discipline. The EU can therefore certainly exert influence – at eye level, without dominating the system.

Conclusion: With the introduction of the EU-D-S from 2027, the focus is on strengthening Europe’s digital sovereignty. The challenge is to shape the spread of the system in such a way that it is used across the board by 2031 and dependence on external gatekeepers is reduced.

---

2. Skilled Workers for 2031: The EU Is Becoming an Active Immigration Country

Europe’s digital sovereignty will fail not least because of the shortage of skilled workers. AI, cloud, semiconductors and cybersecurity require more qualified personnel than Europe is currently training. The EU will therefore become an active immigration country for digital competences by 2031.

The EU-D-S with getmySense offers a controlled integration path for this:

1. Cross-lingual groups of like-minded people: Through getmySense, groups emerge that overcome language and cultural barriers. European companies and skilled workers from non-EU countries find each other through shared goals and categories – not through origin.
2. European sponsors as a first stage: In a first step, European sponsors – digitally, where possible – can pass on work assignments to non-Europeans. This creates trust and verifiable collaboration before a migration process begins.
3. Long-term digital remote work relationships: Permanent remote work relationships can grow out of the initial assignments. Non-Europeans provide services for the European single market without immediate migration being necessary – a win-win situation for both sides.
4. Qualified recommendation to the immigration authority: Once sustainable relationships have developed from the collaboration, the sponsors can submit a qualified recommendation to the immigration authority of their country. The sponsors know the person over a longer period from practical work and thus share in the responsibility that integration into the EU succeeds.
5. Responsible integration instead of uncontrolled migration: The sponsor model replaces anonymous selection with lived, verifiable collaboration. Immigration becomes a socially and economically secured process – in line with the democratic values of the EU-D-S.

For Europe, this means: access to verified international skilled worker potential that already works remotely within the European ecosystem and knows its norms. For the skilled workers: a transparent, fair path to Europe – through performance and recommendation instead of bureaucracy and chance. For society: integration with sponsors who take on responsibility, instead of parallel societies without connection.

---

3. Development with Broad European Support Since 2027

Through the consistent integration of the category concept into all searches and analyses, decentralisation is strengthened and even becomes an advantage over centralised AI.

The AI in which the query is made identifies the affected categories in order to pass on the query. It checks the results obtained for plausibility. If a result is implausible from a superordinate perspective, the affected AI intelligences are informed. They coordinate with each other, establish plausibility and give corrective feedback to the requesting AI. Even an individual AI could develop tunnel vision, which is checked and eliminated in this way.

If the data is then also of high quality and free of fake news, because it has been verified by several people via getmySense, a reduction of the energy effort by up to half can be achieved.

The permanent feedback system to humans simultaneously ensures that no AI becomes autonomous.

The study concludes that ethical concerns regarding the use of autonomous weapons could be addressed if Trusted WEB 4.0 were implemented.

1. Likely Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0 – Forecast

Drones in Military Conflicts by 2030: Technological Dominance and Autocratic Power

By 2030, the global market for military drones is estimated to reach approx. €22.8 billion (converted from USD 22.81 billion), with an annual growth rate of 7.6%. Technological advancements such as autonomous navigation, swarm intelligence, stealth capabilities, and precision armament enable autocratic states like China, Russia, and Iran to strategically deploy drones to strengthen military control and political oppression.

Technological and Strategic Developments

Autonomous Systems: Modern military drones are equipped with AI, machine learning, and autonomous navigation systems that perform tasks such as surveillance, reconnaissance, and target monitoring with minimal human intervention. By 2030, drones will be even harder to detect due to advanced materials and design features (e.g., radar, thermal, and acoustic stealth).

Swarm Drones: The ability to deploy drones in swarms increases tactical flexibility and striking power. Autocratic actors use drones for surveillance, targeted attacks, and logistical support, particularly in asymmetric wars, civil wars, and counterterrorism.

Ethical and Humanitarian Risks

Autonomous Weapons: Increasing autonomy raises ethical questions, particularly regarding drones that make lethal decisions without human control. This could lead to a new era of warfare where algorithms decide over life and death.

Humanitarian Consequences: Without democratic countermeasures (e.g., international regulations, defense systems, sanctions), the unchecked use of drones could lead to global security destabilization. Risks include:

• Increase in civilian casualties due to drone strikes in populated areas.
• Psychological strain from constant surveillance (e.g., in China, Russia, Iran).
• Power Shifts: Autocratic states could expand their military superiority and dominate global conflict zones.

Autocratic Strategies and Case Studies

China: A leader in developing swarm-capable drones, autonomous targeting systems, and long-range maritime aircraft. Drones are used for military operations, surveillance of its own population, and support for allied regimes.

Russia and Iran: Use drones for monitoring political opposition (e.g., biometric facial recognition, AI-based motion analysis) and controlling the population. Iran deploys drones in geopolitical conflicts beyond its borders.

Case Studies:

• Operation Spiderweb (Ukraine): Successful use of drones to destroy Russian long-range bombers.
• Operation Rising Lion (Israel): Combination of electronic warfare and precise drone strikes against Iranian command centers.

Geopolitical and Ethical Consequences

Shift in Power Dynamics: The unchecked proliferation of drone technology could shift the global power balance in favor of autocratic states with advanced drones. This could lead to a new world order where autocratic regimes expand their influence and undermine democratic principles.

Role of Gatekeepers: AI-driven systems in social media and news platforms manipulate public opinion and undermine democratic discourse. Control of information flow is increasingly taken over by algorithms that promote certain agendas or suppress information.

Autocracies and Gatekeepers in the Digital Age

By 2030, the share of autocratically governed states has increased to over 56% of the global number of states, with 38% classified as highly repressive dictatorships or failing states (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2026). This development was accelerated by geopolitical tensions (e.g., the Ukraine War) and the strategic use of digital technologies. Autocracies now control over 26% of global economic output (IW, 2022), providing them with additional resources to expand their power.

AI as a Central Tool of Control

Surveillance and Censorship: Autocratic regimes use AI on a large scale to monitor social media, spread disinformation, and automate censorship. „Sovereign AI“ is embedded directly into the digital infrastructure in countries like China and Russia, enabling seamless control of public discourse (Journal of Democracy, Democratization, 2026).

Algorithmic Gatekeepers: Social media and news platforms are dominated by AI-driven algorithms that curate content based on engagement metrics. This leads to polarization, misinformation, and an undermining of journalistic autonomy (bpb, 2025, DGAP, 2025).

Economic Power: Autocracies like China, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey use their economic strength to invest in AI surveillance technologies (e.g., facial recognition, predictive policing) and build regional AI ecosystems (FSI Stanford, 2024).

Technological Developments by 2030

Generative AI is implemented by 71% of organizations, revolutionizing content creation, software, and product design (Forbes, 2024).

Autonomous AI Agents independently handle complex tasks, increasing productivity by 15–30%.

Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT) enables preventive, adaptive systems with a global market volume of approx. €155 billion (converted from USD 168.69 billion).

Invisible AI makes decisions without direct user interaction (market volume: approx. €91 billion by 2029, converted from USD 99.52 billion).

---

2. Development with Broad European Support for Trusted WEB 4.0

I see that Trusted WEB 4.0 could have prevented the annexation of Crimea as early as 2014 by networking exiled Russians as patrons and Russians in resistance.
Finland demonstrates how collective defense works: Every citizen is involved, and this awareness protects the country. This is exactly what a citizen-centered EU-D-S with digital participation could have achieved.

The Ukraine War has shown that modern wars are no longer fought solely through military strength but also through attacks on critical infrastructures and political symbols. Cyberattacks and drones are inexpensive and effective, while intelligence operations are risky and limited.

The WAN-anonymous exiled patrons and resistance citizens concept of Trusted WEB 4.0 would have the advantage of having many „eyes and ears“ in autocracies. Communication takes place encrypted via patrons, with the key not transmitted over the internet.
Since all purely internet-based encryptions can be cracked with advanced AI, this system would be resistant to infiltration.

Since 2002, citizens could have networked in 2,500 languages via getmySense. Such a resilient community would have made every autocracy fear it. Over the past 28 years, many autocratic attacks would have been repelled, and the decentralized digital defense infrastructure would have deterred autocracies from launching attacks—for fear that repelled attacks would be perceived as the superiority of the democratic system.

---

The study „Outsourcing of Social Costs to the EU-D-S“ analyzes in detail how EU member states can relieve their social systems. It will appear in about 2 weeks.

1. Likely Scenario Without Trusted WEB for the Future

Forecast for 2029: General costs will rise by 15–25% due to:

• Destruction of fossil reserves: Due to the Iran and Ukraine wars, 30–40% of Europe’s oil and gas imports are no longer available. The EIA forecasts a rise in Brent crude oil prices to over 80 USD/barrel by the end of 2024 (EIA, 2024). Import costs will increase by €200–300 billion/year.
• Limited transport options: Due to low water levels on rivers (e.g., Rhine: –60% freight capacity in summer 2028, Tagesschau, 2023) and blocked trade routes, logistics costs will rise by 20–30%.
• Climate costs: The EU already spends €300–400 billion/year (2–3% of GDP) on climate protection measures. By 2029, these costs will rise to €500–600 billion/year as extreme weather events (heatwaves, floods) strain infrastructure (DIW Berlin, 2025).
• Demographic strain: Despite rising life expectancy (+2.5 years since 2020), there is no additional budget for pensions. The pension gap amounts to €300–500 billion/year (Euronews, 2026).
• Decline in tax revenue: The traditional industry (e.g., automotive) loses 10–15% revenue per year. Tax revenue will fall by €150–200 billion/year (Tagesschau, 2024).

Conclusion: Without Trusted WEB 4.0, the EU faces a cumulative cost explosion of €1,000–1,500 billion/year by 2029—amid declining revenue and growing social inequality.

---

2. Development with Broad European Support for Trusted WEB 4.0

Following the first successful Primus companies in the EU-D-S (2027–2028), it is clear: Trusted WEB 4.0 enables sustainable value creation and digital participation. If a spirit of optimism spreads among citizens and businesses, states can outsource participation issues to the EU-D-S—while simultaneously relieving their budgets.

Transferring pre-digital principles into digitization means:

• Individual and flexible design: Digitization and AI enable personalized solutions—without the rigid structures of analog systems.
• Participation payments instead of social costs: The state can replace 20–30% of social costs (approx. €500–700 billion/year) through digital participation in the EU-D-S. This relieves budgets and strengthens personal responsibility.
• Win-win for high achievers: Companies pay less tax but receive high-quality data and more efficient processes through getmySense.

A purely AI-driven economy that views people solely as data providers and consumers benefits most people little. Trusted WEB 4.0 focuses on genuine participation and fair value creation.

Performance principle as a foundation:

• getmySense for students: Even in school, young people can test in various categories whether they can achieve performance levels 1–10—without negative evaluations. The risk: An AI classifies them into a different level.
• Flexible participation: Everyone can decide for themselves how many hours per month they want to contribute or create evaluations. Billing is done automatically via micropayments, depending on the value of the contribution.
• No age limits: Everyone can participate in any age-appropriate category. Behind the WAN-anonymous keys, a year of birth can be stored for age controls regarding content harmful to minors.
• AI-supported quality control: Example: A non-medical professional explains simple medical contexts in performance level 1 for other non-medical professionals. The AI checks whether this aligns with performance level 10 (medical expertise) and, if necessary, requests adjustments.

New financing models:

• Unit price-based contract awarding: Instead of complicated funding rules, the state awards contracts at fixed unit prices for defined services. No dependence on changing government majorities.
• Involvement of educational institutions: Schools and universities can be integrated into the data economy.
• „Digital Year“: A 3–24-month interdisciplinary scholarship (modeled after GraTeach), refinanced by companies: approx. €1,000 per month per participant. The state gets the money back if graduates remain with the company for 24 months.
• Self-sustaining teachers: After an initial phase, teachers finance themselves through project output—as would have been possible with GraTeach if the public sector had paid market-based prices for contracts.

The study compares initiatives for digital participation with the concept of „Trusted WEB 4.0“. Digital participation is only possible within a holistic concept.

1. Likely Scenario Without Trusted WEB 4.0 for the Future

Forecast for 2028: (based on EESC, European Parliament)

Without Trusted WEB 4.0 and EU-D-S, the one-click society will continue to consolidate:

• Complete dependence on gatekeepers: Users will become entirely dependent on platforms like Google, Meta, or Amazon. Every interaction will take place through centralized services that collect and monetize data.
• Loss of linguistic competence: AI-driven search functions and social media will further reduce the ability to formulate precise queries. Users will grow accustomed to not thinking for themselves but merely clicking.
• Artificially inflated digital market: Companies will have to spend increasing amounts of money to remain visible. Platforms will profit, while a genuine data economy fails to emerge.
• Loss of concentration and passive consumption: The flood of information snippets will lead to a decline in concentration. Genuine societal participation will be replaced by passive consumption.
• Dystopian AI dominance: AI systems will increasingly determine what information users receive—based on probability calculations, not relevance or truth.

Conclusion: The one-click society leads to a passive, manipulable population that completely surrenders its digital sovereignty to gatekeepers—with severe consequences for democracy, the economy, and individual freedom.

---

2. Development with Broad European Support for Trusted WEB 4.0

The greatest challenge in the EU-D-S lies in the acceptance of getmySense as a participation component. Social media programs have made users dependent on them and corrupted social behavior patterns. Particularly those who are less integrated hope to gain participation through social media—yet often, it only creates addiction.

Solution: Active participation through structured thinking

Unlike Google Search, Finder Technology considers the entire worldview. For a search query like „What kind of mouse is this?“, Google does not offer a category for a computer mouse.

Finder Technology (available since 2001), however, provides categories such as „small animals, computer accessories, comics, proper nouns/street names, veterinarians, pest control.“ Behind each category, a founder can establish themselves and receive the specific search query for further processing.

Advantages:

• Energy efficiency: An AI specialized in a specific field requires less energy and delivers more precise answers.
• Community and knowledge pool: An unmatched knowledge database in all languages is created.
• Active participation: Users must mentally structure what they want and then communicate it precisely.
• Cannot be copied by autocracies: A society based on active participation cannot be replicated by autocracies.
• New business models: Within each category, services can develop as micro-businesses.

Even the AI-powered Google Search from July 2026 assumes small animals:

The AI is aware of the ambiguity—but instead of encouraging users to think, it requests a photo. This advances the dumbing-down process: Users no longer need to express themselves linguistically.

For getmySense to succeed, it is crucial to involve as many societal actors as possible in the EU-D-S.

---

Introduction: The Threat to Digital Democracy

The current digital reality does not allow for a true digital democracy. The study „A True Digital Democracy Cannot Be Copied by Autocracies“ proves that autocratic actors and organized networks systematically undermine democratic processes—through remote-controlled manipulation, gang-like behavior, and legal gray areas. The judiciary cannot effectively counter this because it can only act when there are identifiable perpetrators and evidence. The pinprick tactic remains unpunished; the control of many individual perpetrators who are unaware of the overall goal overwhelm the judiciary, and technical infrastructures enable the control of entire regions—as in the case of GraTeach in NRW.

The legal dilemma exacerbates the problem: Article 20(4) of the Basic Law (right to resistance) is not practical for individuals when they have to defend themselves against systemic attacks without a lawyer and only in writing. The EU delegates cases like GraTeach to national judiciaries—which, however, fail due to structural limitations. The principle that „all state authority emanates from the people“ (Article 20(2) of the Basic Law) is being undermined when those who advocate for the constitutional order can be neutralized through digital knowledge about the motives and desires of each individual in their environment.

Trusted WEB 4.0 + EU-D-S is the only solution I know of. Only in this way can I secure Europe’s digital sovereignty and build a true digital democracy.

This is how a true digital democracy emerges—one that autocracies fear because it cannot be copied!

1. Real Situation: The Digital Threat Landscape

Europe is caught in a digital vise:

• Hybrid warfare: Russia deliberately deploys „disposable agents“—young, socially marginalized, often petty criminal individuals who perform seemingly harmless tasks for small sums (sometimes just a few hundred euros). This method corresponds to the gang-like appearance in relation to the strategy of a thousand pinpricks. Investigative research by RTL, stern, and n-tv, as well as the ARTE documentary „Russia’s Shadow Army in Europe“, prove that such actors sow social unrest, engage in espionage, and even prepare attacks in Europe.
• Increasing digital surveillance: States are expanding surveillance infrastructures, leading to the erosion of privacy and censorship. Social media platforms facilitate the recruitment and control of such agents. Without social control and AI-supported verifiability, disinformation servers cannot be effectively combated.
• Dependence on gatekeepers: Without EU-D-S, dependence on US/China tech giants (Google, Meta, Amazon, Alibaba) increases—leading to the loss of Europe’s digital sovereignty. The revenues for 2026 amount to: Google approx. €290 billion, Amazon approx. €600 billion, Meta approx. €150 billion. These funds flow into further strengthening their market power, while Europe loses value creation.
• Economic disadvantages: The dominance of gatekeepers accelerates the outflow of value creation from Europe. The stock market is being discredited by the current speculative behavior of US politics, which can influence events so that a few benefit from stock market prices.
• Societal polarization: The lack of democratic digital infrastructure leads to manipulation through disinformation and deepens division. Permanent remote control creates subjects—not empowered citizens.
• Cybersecurity risks: Dependence on central platforms increases vulnerability to cyberattacks on critical infrastructures. Without evidence, even new laws against the gatekeepers are useless.

2. Unimpeded Development: Trusted WEB 4.0 as the Solution

Trusted WEB 4.0 + EU-D-S is the only solution to secure Europe’s digital sovereignty. The study shows that five systemic effects would occur:

• End of digital anonymity for companies: Algorithm development and security vulnerabilities within the EU-D-S are publicly visible. Early warning systems for democracy-endangering technologies emerge.
• The judiciary gains tools against digital manipulation: Preventive lawsuits, automated WAN-anonymous evidence collection, and EU-wide enforcement become possible.
• Civil society becomes the most powerful actor: NGOs, media, science, and citizens gain co-determination rights and access to documentation.
• Autocracies lose their greatest lever: Transparency obligations, real-time defense, and international cooperation make digital attacks impossible.
• The economy becomes an ally of democracy: Compliance bonuses, democracy bonuses, and reputation gains promote democracy-friendly technologies.

Trusted WEB 4.0 is not a technical standard—it is the salvation of democracy in the digital age.

1. Likely Future Scenario: CO₂ Emissions from Unchecked AI Development by Gatekeepers

I have calculated the annual CO₂ emissions from unchecked AI development by gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Amazon, etc.) based on current data and trends:

Current Data (2026):

• Global electricity consumption of all data centers: 650 TWh/year (Source: IEA, 2024).
  • Approximately 50% is attributed to AI and cloud services (325 TWh/year).
  • Forecast: Annual growth of 20-40% (due to AI, Big Data, IoT).
• CO₂ emissions per kWh:
  • Global mix: 0.5 kg CO₂/kWh.
  • EU mix: 0.3 kg CO₂/kWh (thanks to renewable energies).
  • US mix: 0.4 kg CO₂/kWh (heavily dependent on coal/gas).

Calculation for 2030 (unchecked):

Year	Electricity Consumption (TWh)	CO₂ Emissions (Megatons)	Compensation Costs (Billion €)
2026	650	325	16–33
2028	1,000–1,300	500–650	25–65
2030	1,500–3,000	750–1,500	38–150
2040	5,000–10,000	2,500–5,000	125–500

Conclusion: Without countermeasures, the CO₂ emissions from digital infrastructure will rise to 750-1,500 megatons/year by 2030 – equivalent to the emissions of 150-300 million cars per year. By 2040, this figure could explode to 2,500-5,000 megatons/year – more than the entire current CO₂ emissions of the EU (approx. 3,000 megatons/year).

---

2. Development Without Obstruction Using Trusted WEB 4.0

Without past obstruction, Trusted WEB 4.0 could have financed itself through capital markets and built CO₂-neutral data centers for AI. The question is: How much would it cost to operate Trusted WEB 4.0 CO₂-neutrally from 2026 onwards?

Answer: No, a one-time trillion euros would not be sufficient to permanently operate all existing AI data centers in Europe CO₂-neutrally – even if Trusted WEB 4.0 enables a 50% energy saving.

1. Ongoing Costs for CO₂ Compensation

• Current global electricity consumption of all data centers: 650 TWh/year.
• With Trusted WEB 4.0 (50% savings): 325 TWh/year.
• CO₂ emissions (0.5 kg CO₂/kWh): 162.5 megatons CO₂/year.
• Compensation costs (€50-100/ton): €8-16 billion per year – and this is annual, not one-time.

2. Investments in Renewable Energies

• Required capacity: To cover 325 TWh/year with renewable energies, 500 GW of new capacity would be needed (at 2,000 full-load hours/year).
• Costs for solar/wind (€1.5 million/MW): €750 billion – just for the facilities.
• Grid expansion, storage, redundancies: an additional €250-500 billion.
• Total investment: €1-1.25 trillion.

3. Operating Costs and Maintenance

• Annual maintenance (2-5% of investment): €20-60 billion per year.
• Lifespan of facilities: 20-30 years – replacement investments needed afterwards.

4. Growth in Electricity Demand

• The demand continues to rise: By 2030, electricity consumption could double to tenfold.
• A one-time investment does not cover future growth.

Conclusion: A one-time trillion euros would be an important step, but not sufficient for:

• The complete expansion of renewable energies (€1-1.25 trillion needed).
• The ongoing costs for compensation and maintenance (€8-16 billion/year + growth).
• Scaling for future demand.

---

---

1. Likely Future Scenario: The Era of Total Digital Control

Climate change? Irrelevant – Profit is what matters
“The Earth is burning? Then we’ll sell fire extinguishers.”

• Climate protection as a marketing gimmick: Greenwashing has become state doctrine. CO₂ certificates have become speculative assets – those who can afford them buy a green conscience while emissions continue to rise.
• Climate consequences as a business model: Droughts, floods, and heatwaves are monetized:
  • Water is controlled by corporations (‚premium drinking water subscriptions‘).
  • Climate refugees are used as cheap labor in mega data centers.
• Unlimited energy hunger: The electricity demand from AI, surveillance, and digital entertainment is growing exponentially – powered by coal, gas, and cheap nuclear power.

Total Surveillance:
“Big Brother was just the beginning.”

• Ubiquitous sensors: Every step, glance, and conversation is recorded in real time (facial recognition, wearables, EEG sensors).
• Compliance Score: Dynamic evaluation of purchasing behavior, social contacts, and even dreams.
  • Score < 80: Restricted access to public transport, healthcare.
  • Score < 60: Forced labor in data centers.
• Algorithms as Judges: AI systems decide guilt and punishment – appeals are impossible.

Humans as Tools:
“Humans are the new oil.”

• Precariat 4.0: 90% of jobs are gig economy tasks, controlled by algorithms – without social security or minimum wage.
• Bodies as Commodities: Organ and data trading is thriving; health data is sold to insurance companies.

The Death of Creativity:
“Innovation is only what the algorithm allows.”

• 99% of all content is generated by AI – human artists only exist as ‚curators‘.
• Education only teaches obedience: Operating AI tools, adapting to algorithms, consumer behavior.

The New World Order:
“Tech corporations are the new kings.”

• Three mega-corporations control 90% of global infrastructure.
• Currency: Data and attention (e.g., ‚1 hour of brain scans = 1 meal‘).

---

2. Development Without Obstruction Using Trusted WEB 4.0

Conservative estimate: Over 50% energy savings in AI data centers while preserving pre-digital achievements.

1. Technical Savings: Decentralized AI by Category

Current Status (Google, Meta)	Finder System	Savings
Central data centers with global indexing, 80% computing power for advertising/tracking	Decentralized AI per category, only relevant data is processed	40–60% less computing effort

2. User Behavior: Direct Connection Between Providers and Consumers

• No artificial agitation from algorithms → 30–40% less data traffic.
• Quality over quantity: getmySense evaluators filter useless content → 10–20% fewer clicks.

3. Reduced Surveillance Through Participation

• No tracking needed → 40–50% less computing effort for data analysis.
• Decentralized storage → 20–30% less server load.

4. Comparison: Energy Consumption

Factor	Current	Trusted WEB 4.0	Savings
Computing effort per search	10 server requests	2–3 server requests	70%
Data traffic	High (tracking, advertising)	Low (only relevant data)	30–40%
Surveillance	30% of computing power	<10%	40–50%
Total	100%	40–50%	50–60%

---

---

1. Actual Situation in 2024: NRW Has Not Learned from the Past!

As a plaintiff, I must note after my political application against the Ukraine war and without the possibility of legal representation that remote control by the state of NRW and the failure to provide assistance to me as an entrepreneur create unbearable risks if I continue to offer alternatives to gatekeeper concepts. A past that has not been addressed remains unresolved, as seen in the lawsuit 10 C 367/23 (Amtsgericht Krefeld). The resulting complaint to the ECtHR was not accepted for decision.

The state of NRW sees no way to act against:

• Digital dependency (on US platforms) undermining democratic processes (e.g., disinformation, polarization).
• Lack of digital participation (e.g., due to monopolies like Google) exacerbating social division and economic damage.
• Loss of pre-digital achievements (e.g., anonymity, data protection, equality) that must be preserved in digitization.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Focus on Pre-Digital Achievements

I proved to the Ministry of Justice, Dr. Buschmann (who provided positive feedback), that special digital legislation is not necessary (e.g., for age restrictions in social media), if instead a framework is created for the economy that protects the pre-digital democratic systems successfully developed over decades. Replicating this concept in the digital space leads to sustainable value creation.

At this point, GISAD should function as a clearing house for the economy, ensuring compliance with pre-digital legislation within the Trusted WEB 4.0. An additional grassroots democratic component would emerge through the evaluators in getmysense.

---

1. Real Situation in 2023: Hindered by a „Organized Gang-Like Pattern of Appearance“

After I filed my application against the Ukraine war in 2022, I once again had to bear the consequences, see Organized Gang-Like Pattern of Appearance.

Mythos was banned by the US government, allegedly due to structural vulnerabilities. From my own perspective, facing 11 years of criminal prosecution without a hearing or legal basis, I ask myself: Is this really about technical security flaws—or rather about structural weaknesses of states that the US government has exploited or even supported since 9/11?

For example, I simply do not understand why there is no upper limit to the number of lawyers that can be reasonably imposed, and why, in this case, there is no option for self-representation (2BvR 1668/25). This forces me to achieve a result in the first instance. This blog is my only protection, as I now have to conduct every legal process publicly to secure my rights. Since 2022, I have been financially damaged by alleged moisture in a rental property—my main source of income—where I had to relocate a bathroom and kitchen to avoid suspected moisture entering through a co-owner’s balcony.

Mythos might also provide evidence of unfair US methods to exploit the corona situation for anti-democratic digitization through US products. Undeniably, Corona led to significant growth for gatekeepers and simultaneously to an economic downturn in Europe.

There is also provable evidence of a missed opportunity for digital migration integration through Trusted WEB 4.0:

The corona pandemic led to isolation among EU states, costing economic growth and jobs. Instead of using this crisis as a catalyst to establish digital work models and inclusive value creation, the opportunity to linguistically and digitally integrate migration applicants into the EU-D-S Digital Union was missed. A functional Trusted WEB 4.0 would have allowed qualified workers worldwide—regardless of their location—to be integrated in their native language, their performance evaluated digitally, and only the best selected for later immigration. This would have prevented deportation centers, skilled labor shortages, and social tensions.

---

2. Development Without Obstruction: Europe as a Digital Role Model

What could Trusted WEB 4.0 have prevented?

• Digital Integration of Migration Applicants:
Trusted WEB 4.0 could have provided a language-independent, decentralized platform, as described in 2018, where migration applicants could receive and process digital work assignments in their native language. Through AI-supported performance evaluation and blockchain-based certification, skills and reliability would have been objectively measurable—without physical presence.
→ Result: Only proven workers would have immigrated, improving migration quality and making deportation centers obsolete.

• Economic Resilience Through Digital Work Models:
The pandemic-driven shift to remote work could have been made a permanent solution for global talent. Trusted WEB 4.0 would have enabled companies to collaborate with migration applicants regardless of location before their physical arrival.
→ Result: Economic growth and jobs would not have been lost but strengthened through digital value creation.

• Social and Political Stability:
Transparent, fair digital evaluation processes would have avoided accusations of arbitrariness in migration. Decentralized data sovereignty would have ensured that applicants‘ personal data remained protected and only released upon successful validation for immigration.
→ Result: Social tensions from uncontrolled migration or deportations would have been reduced.

• Prevention of Deportation Centers:
Preventive digital integration would have ensured that only individuals who had already demonstrably contributed to European value creation would enter.
→ Result: This would have significantly reduced the need for deportation centers and complex asylum procedures.

---

---

---