From FTT to Climate Contribution: The Evolution of an Idea to Make It Possible

As the person behind the Neutral Project, I spend most of my time not only dreaming of a more sustainable future but also grappling with the very concrete details that could make that dream a reality. I work alone on this project, and my thought process is a constant cycle of learning, questioning, and adapting.

Today, I want to share a major evolution in my thinking with you—a step that I believe is crucial for the future of the project. I'm offering this reflection with full transparency because it's at the heart of transforming an ambitious vision into a workable action plan.

The Starting Point: The Alluring Idea of a Global Tax

Like many, my starting point was the well-known concept of a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT). On paper, the idea is incredibly appealing: levy a tiny fraction of the gigantic financial flows that circle the globe every day to fund the climate transition and stabilize markets. A simple, powerful, and fair solution.

But an idea, no matter how beautiful, must stand the test of reality. As I dug deeper, analyzing the legal and political mechanisms, I hit a wall. A wall you could call the "sovereignty wall." I realized that asking countries to cede their power to tax—one of the foundations of the modern state—was a political dead end. The constitutions of major powers, conflicts with existing national taxes, political resistance... all these obstacles are not minor details, but fundamental barriers.

The Breakthrough: Changing the Frame to Change the Game

Faced with this reality, I had two choices: stubbornly push forward down a dead-end street, or have the humility to acknowledge these obstacles and find a smarter way around them.

That's when the breakthrough happened. What if the problem wasn't the levy itself, but the way it was named, designed, and legally framed? I realized that by clinging to the word "tax," we were doomed to run headfirst into that wall. By changing the frame, we could potentially open a door.

And so, the idea of a "Global Climate Contribution" emerged. This isn't just a name change. It's a complete redesign of the project's architecture.

My Evolved Proposal: The Hybrid Architecture

I've therefore arrived at a hybrid solution that I believe is far more robust, pragmatic, and, ultimately, much more achievable. Here it is, summarized in a few key points:

1.    We call it a "Contribution," not a "Tax."
This changes everything politically. It's no longer a tax levied by a global authority, but a mandatory contribution from financial actors to maintain a global public good (a stable climate) and the resilience of the system they use. It's a "management fee" for a sustainable planet.

2.    It is implemented by the states themselves.
This is the heart of the solution, the principle of "contributory sovereignty." There is no transfer of power. Through an international treaty, states simply commit to introducing this "contribution" into their own national law. They remain in control, but act in concert for a common goal.

3.    It is universal by design.
Thanks to the "issuer principle," the contribution applies to any transaction on a security from a company in a member country, no matter where the transaction takes place in the world. This makes escaping to tax havens much more difficult.

4.    Technology serves transparency, not complexity.
No complex, centralized system. We use open technology standards (APIs) so that all financial players can easily implement it. The blockchain, meanwhile, serves as a public ledger—not to track every transaction, but to ensure full transparency on the funds collected and their allocation.

Your Opinion is Invaluable

This evolution from an FTT to a Global Climate Contribution seems to me to be the most credible path for the Neutral Project to see the light of day. It's a major step in my thinking, and that's why I wanted to share it with you today.

But this reflection isn't over, and I am very interested in your opinion. What do you think of this approach? Does the idea of a "contribution" seem more viable to you? Do you see any flaws or opportunities that I might have missed?

Your feedback, questions, and critiques are precious. They will help me refine this strategy to make it even stronger. I look forward to reading your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for your support and attention.