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.

text
Kopieren

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):

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

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

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.

1. The Real Situation in 2022: No Proactive Concept Against Hybrid Threats

In 2022, I experience a Europe stuck in a defensive posture. The digital dependence on gatekeepers—Google, Amazon, Meta—has long been a reality. At the same time, the Ukraine war escalates, fought not only militarily but, above all, digitally: disinformation, cyberattacks, and digital surveillance are the weapons of autocracies. The EU responds with regulatory attempts like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), set to take effect in 2023. However, these measures primarily aim for fair markets, not the digital sovereignty we urgently need to assert ourselves against the power of gatekeepers and autocratic states.

The costs of inaction are becoming increasingly clear:

• Cyberattacks and data breaches are on the rise, while Europe cannot present its own secure infrastructure.
• Ukraine is fighting for its existence, yet instead of creating a digital alternative that strengthens resistance in Russia, the West relies on military solutions.
• The gatekeepers dominate the market and, with it, political opinion-forming. Their platforms have become instruments of power that undermine democracies.

On June 13, 2022, I submitted the resolution proposal against the Ukraine war to the FDP. In it, I demand:

• Financial support for Ukraine to build a digital highway (1:1 VPN connections) between exile Russians and resistance forces in Russia.
• The establishment of GISAD as a central authority for developing standards that transfer pre-digital democratic achievements into the digital world.

The resolutions, supported by liberal EU delegates, were unanimous. But since Wissing was elected Digital Minister, seemingly important short-term challenges have shaped him. Since politics cannot prescribe proactive action to ministers, it is increasingly incapable of acting in an unshaped digital world.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Digital Democracy Offers Resilience Against Power Concentration

As I keep repeating: As early as 1999, the Finder technology could have laid the foundation for a secure digital identity. In 2002, getmysense—a system enabling social control through digital participation without sliding into surveillance—could have followed. In 2003, GISAD would have created the infrastructure for decentralized, anonymous, and structurally relevant standards. In 2004, the EU-D-S (European Digital System) could have served as the backbone of a European Digital Union. And in 2007, WAN anonymity would have added another building block for secure, manipulation-resistant communication.

Had we consistently implemented these technologies, Europe would not be dependent on American platforms today. Instead, we would have:

• Built a digital highway between exile Russians and resistance forces in Russia. For just 30 million euros (30 € per connection), one million exile Russians could have established secure 1:1 VPN connections with Russians in resistance—and thus accelerated the internal disintegration of the Putin regime.
• Used Ukraine as a pilot project to test a digital democracy infrastructure. The cost? Laughably low compared to the billions spent on weapons and reconstruction.
• Established GISAD as a central clearinghouse coordinating cooperatives for digital participation in every linguistic region—though this would require the executive to be willing to confront its past mistakes. This could generate billions in savings through more efficient use of EU funds.

1. Real Situation in 2021: Europe Missed a Critical Opportunity Due to Its Focus on the USA

Economic Downturn: The Corona pandemic plunged Europe into its deepest economic crisis since World War II. The EU responded with unprecedented rescue packages worth billions to mitigate the recession. The EU’s SURE program alone amounted to €100 billion to protect threatened jobs and workers.

Recovery Programs: In May 2020, the European Commission introduced a €750 billion stimulus program („Next Generation EU“) to address the economic and social damage caused by the pandemic. Of this, €500 billion was allocated as grants, and the rest as loans. These funds were intended to flow into climate protection, digital transformation, social support, and strengthening the EU as a global actor.

Sector-Specific Damages:

• Tourism and Hospitality: These industries were particularly hard hit due to travel restrictions and lockdowns, leading to massive revenue losses.
• Supply Chains: The pandemic exposed the vulnerability of global supply chains to disruptions, resulting in shortages of medical goods and industrial products.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Capital Would Have Promoted Resilience and Sustainability

Without the gatekeepers, the entirely exaggerated disruption discussion might not have arisen. There was a belief that everything had to be dismantled. Capital complied and was rewarded in the short term by the FOMO effect.

During the Corona pandemic (2020–2022), Europe faced concrete issues with cash supply. Bank branches were closed, ATMs were overloaded, and cash was considered a potential transmitter of the virus, leading to a reduction in cash usage by up to 50% in some EU countries (ECB data). Many retailers refused cash. Online banks were overwhelmed, phishing attacks increased, and transfers were delayed.

For the WAN-anonymous Trusted WEB 4.0 payment system (Patent DE102022000532), there would have been use cases for every status of payment transfer failure for the first time:

• Status 1: Full internet connection – transactions proceed normally.
• Status 2: Regional internet outages – use of location-trust servers as backup.
• Status 3: No internet, but device-to-device connection possible – control devices (e.g., smartphones) handle validation.
• Status 4: Complete blackout – direct connection between two devices (e.g., via NFC/Bluetooth) enables emergency transactions.
• Emergency Funds: A portion of the balance is automatically reserved as an emergency fund to enable transactions even during long-term outages (e.g., power blackouts).
• Forensic Evidence Preservation: All transactions are encrypted and can be retroactively validated once the connection is restored.

Citizens who do not rely on a full-supply mentality from their state would have to deal with significantly less bureaucracy. Automating taxes and social contributions would have made capital allocation more efficient with the Trusted WEB 4.0 accounting system (Patent DE102018000235, ID-based, WAN-anonymous accounting) and increased productivity.

Events in Europe that would have changed with EU-D-S:

• Economic Recovery: Automating taxes and social contributions would have relieved small and medium-sized enterprises and increased productivity.
• Digital Sovereignty: Instead of European data being stored on servers in the USA, it would have been stored in European trust servers – with guaranteed legal certainty and without dependence on gatekeeper algorithms.
• Capital Formation: Instead of European capital flowing into US stocks, it could have been invested in European infrastructure (e.g., Trusted WEB 4.0) – thus securing long-term value creation in Europe.

If the EU-D-S had been introduced in 2004, WAN anonymity and getmysense would have been established as standards by 2021. The pandemic would then not have led to a concentration of power among the gatekeepers but to a strengthening of European digital competence. Instead of FOMO-driven speculation, there would have been investments in resilience – and Europe would be not only economically but also digitally sovereign today.

1. Real Situation 2020: Political Activism Does Not Make Society Crisis-Resilient

Numerous initiatives did emerge, such as the production of makeshift masks by volunteers, sewing initiatives by refugees, or donation campaigns like #WeKickCorona, launched by athletes such as Leon Goretzka and Joshua Kimmich.

However, these were rather positive exceptional effects:

Social isolation and psychological strain:

• Children and adolescents: Nearly one in three children suffered from psychological issues due to the loss of social contacts in daycare centers and schools. Children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds or with a migration background were particularly affected. Quality of life and mental health deteriorated significantly.
• Adults: The pandemic led to an increase in anxiety, depression, and social isolation, as contact restrictions and home office severely limited social life.

Polarization and loss of trust:

The pandemic intensified societal division, particularly through debates about measures such as mask mandates, lockdowns, or vaccinations. Misinformation and conspiracy theories spread rapidly, undermining trust in institutions and science.

Corona management: Instead of centralized top-down solutions, decentralized, resilient networks (such as getmysense) could have accelerated pandemic management – without data scandals and without dependence on US platforms. Politics displayed frantic activism and raised the question of whether one would be better off with an autocracy during pandemic times.

2. Development Without Obstruction: A Resilient Digital Society Would Have Managed the Crisis Much Better

Trusted WEB 4.0 would have ensured that the best of what we have painstakingly developed through democratic processes over many years in analog form is transferred to a digital society – and even improved in the process.

If the getmysense infrastructure had been expanded, Corona would have led to like-minded people from many countries connecting even faster. Home office would have become standard for many people much earlier, because cross-border digital collaboration among like-minded individuals would have long been established. The trendsetter concept could only be successful together with WAN anonymity. To establish a long-term business relationship with someone you have never met in person, you had to be able to rely on the fact that they were not a fake partner and that legal recourse was ensured in case of legal violations.

A Trusted WEB 4.0 with decentralized, user-controlled, and data-sovereign structures could have reduced or prevented the following damages in 2020:

Data sovereignty and digital resilience:

• Decentralized platforms would have reduced dependence on US gatekeepers (e.g., Google, Amazon, Facebook). This would have retained value creation in Europe and strengthened digital sovereignty.
• Secure Trusted WEB 4.0 concepts could have reduced cyberattacks on critical infrastructure (e.g., health data) by up to 70% and decreased dependence on opaque algorithms.

More efficient crisis management:

• Real-time data analysis and decentralized warning systems would have increased response speed to outbreaks and made lockdowns more targeted.
• Digital cooperative models would have promoted local innovations and mitigated the economic crisis by enabling direct value chains between European companies and consumers.

Social and psychological consequences:

• Transparent, participatory platforms would have strengthened trust in institutions and reduced polarization caused by misinformation.
• Digital participation (e.g., through secure, WAN-anonymous voting tools) would have mitigated social isolation and strengthened democracy.
• Like-minded individuals could have supported each other through getmySense.