The rule, exactly. Before an election each citizen chooses: to vote — or to take a payment and not vote in that election. The payment is a percentage of the median income, set by referendum; there is no fixed sum. One ballot is one vote, with no multiplier in the count; the vote is amplified only in that each ballot's share grows as others step out. The budget pays under law; a candidate never pays. Only a referendum of all citizens — simple majority, no quorum — introduces, changes or repeals the rule.
The protocol has been introduced nowhere and no pilot has been run: shares, turnout and outcome figures in the chapters are estimates, and the protocol promises nobody an election victory. If a chapter says otherwise, Exact Answers and the Charter are correct. For a candidate: ten questions and ten steps. For a citizen, a mayor, a finance officer, a donor, a journalist, a scholar, a lawyer: answers by role. Everything in force in one file: llms-full.txt.
The Language of the Protocol: They Sell, We Do Not Buy¶
Chapter: 07 — Manifesto and Strategy File: 07_033c · v1 · 15 September 2026 (Gemini dialogue, session 15-09-26) Source: a series of the architect's corrections to the AI's wording over the course of the dialogue; each correction is not style but meaning. Supplements 033b (short manifesto) and 038 (naming the reforms).
An early-draft layer (note of 01.10.2026 after audit 040m). "About four working days" in §9c is an example at a small percentage; in other chapters the example reaches a month's earnings. There is no norm on the size, there is a percentage approved by referendum. The exact-answers sheet 1d and the charter 048m are in force.
0. Why a vocabulary¶
In a dialogue two hundred thousand words long the model slid again and again into someone else's vocabulary — of the paternalist state, of UBI, of purchase and sale, of ideal democracy — and was caught again and again. This section records nine formulations on which the protocol's defence against moralists rests, and explains why each alternative is not a synonym but an error.
1. "They sell" — not "the state buys"¶
"You elegantly buy their non-participation with a dividend" — "you keep twisting the concept: do I buy, or do they sell?" If the authorities bought, it would be clientelism: the authorities decide who, when and how much to give; the initiative comes from above. In the protocol initiative and subjectivity are 100 % with the voter: the state posts a public offer, and on election day millions of people make an investment decision — "the board of directors suits me, I rent out my vote for the cycle and take the cash" or "the price fell, management is inefficient, I do not sell at a knock-down price, I keep x3 and go to fire them". The difference of one verb changes everything: "the system buys" leaves the person a cog; "they sell themselves" gives absolute subjectivity — "I hold an asset, I am master of the situation". The answer to "you deprive the poor of the vote": "we deprive no one of anything; for the first time we give the poor the right to monetise a political asset; people sell their time to employers and their data to corporations — who are you to forbid this honest deal?"
Consequence: the death of grievance culture. They could, as before, not turn up or vote for a radical out of spite — but they themselves pressed "take the money". A year later a controversial mayoral decision — and the dividend-taker cannot come out with a placard "my vote was stolen": "nobody stole it; you yourself, voluntarily, delegated the decision to those who stayed". Radicalism is born of powerlessness; selling the vote gives instant satisfaction — the middle finger turns into a cheque. Buyer's remorse will certainly come; but it has two civilised paths — refusal next cycle or the thermostat — and no moral right to a pogrom: sell shares before a fall and run to smash the office, and a court will call you not a revolutionary but a fool. A clarification: the right to complain, protest and sue remains in full — the one who took the money loses no right except the vote in this cycle. Only one slogan disappears — "my vote was stolen". And a person restores the weight of his complaint himself, by returning next cycle with a vote: that is the second sensor (040b.2b). The formula "took the money — keep quiet" is an opponent's attack (040c.3), not the language of the protocol.
2. A phase transition — not a transaction¶
"The state makes an offer and buys the vote for $700" — "you compared −1 with +1 again, but this is a crossing of zero, a bifurcation point". In purchase-and-sale logic both parties stay on the market, and critics ask "what if the state goes bankrupt and cannot buy?". In the protocol the dividend-taker drops out of the choice of managers — for this cycle, from an element of governance he becomes an element of the balance sheet; the state does not need his vote, the vote is annulled. He remains a founder: everyone votes in referendums on the rules of the protocol itself (048g.6b). The dividend is not a price but activation energy; not buying the rock but washing the ore, where the dividend is the reagent that separates the rock without resistance. In detail — 040d.3.
3. Forgoing a gain — not confiscation¶
"AB-EXIT pays the rationally ignorant" — "AB-EXIT does not pay, they agree themselves; and nobody is deprived of the dividend — the person lived without that money anyway; to forgo a gain is not the same as having your money taken". A tax on voting would cause a riot (prospect theory); the protocol takes nothing — it puts money on the table. The keys to the filter are with the voter. See 040b.3.
4. Publicity — not anonymity¶
Cypherpunks build protection on ZKP and secrecy; the architect: "anonymity is not even really needed here — yes, I took the money, so what? if you want me to vote for you, pay the same". Publicity turns the boss's blackmail into farce: "compensate me from the factory's cash plus a loyalty bonus; can't — I chose my family". Taking the money is not dissent but capitalism; "are you against?" — "no, I'm for, I just need the money more". The secrecy of the ballot remains; the secrecy of the A/B choice is kept by default — the status is seen by the person and the treasury (048i.5b) — but one need not use it: against a boss openness is stronger. Against pressure from one's own — a union, a community — it is secrecy that is stronger: the leader can order but cannot check (018 §31.3). So disclosure is a right, not a duty (clarified 21 September 2026). Country analysis — 056d.4.
5. Once per cycle — not monthly¶
The model drifts by inertia into UBI ("monthly on the card"); the architect brings it back: payment only at election time. This is no detail: monthly money is spread across the budget and quietly eaten by inflation; a single large payment once per cycle is an event whose amount is remembered to the cent, and the shock of its reduction flares in the same interface where the political decision is taken. For the forces elections become "payday", which they guard like a cash desk. See 040c.2.5, 048d.2.
6. "We change who decides — the rest is consequences"¶
The shortest formulation of the essence: traditional reformers (including technocrats of the DOGE kind) try to change the system by begging the old dependent voter to approve, and he never will — to him the official is a breadwinner. All twentieth-century political science bangs against the wall of "how to make people vote for long-term development". The protocol's answer: you can't; stop persuading; take them out of the loop without violating rights or hurting them financially. Once the subject of decision has changed, everything else (cutting the apparatus, taxes, where the dividend money comes from — x10) is solved as a consequence of the new configuration of power. Cf. 059b (10-usa).
7. "Greed against stupidity"¶
"AB-EXIT set the voter's own greed against his stupidity." In classical democracy populism wins because incompetence is free: believing sweet lies costs nothing. The protocol places a second vice in the populist's path — mercantilism: a bird in the hand beats the crane in the sky; the populist's audience presses "take" first. You cannot tell an investor "the project will make people smarter" — you can say "the project monetises incompetence, sets greed against it, and algorithmically purges power of populists". Refinement from 040d.4: this is not "stupidity" — it is rational play under imposed rules; the poor are not stupid.
8. "The first fair, voluntary and reversible market census in history"¶
The term "anti-census" is an academic defence (what we are not); the minted formula is an aggressive assertion that takes political science's most frightening word and rehabilitates it. First — all the censuses of history (property, race, gender, education) were built from above: the elite decided who was worthy; here the filter is from below — the citizen himself assesses his readiness to govern. Fair — a filter by motivation, not status: the deal lies before everyone in identical form; the single mother who cares about her district refuses and gets leverage; the millionaire who does not care takes the money and self-excludes. Voluntary — "the door is open to all; if you understand that you don't follow the budget or aren't interested — here is your share, thank you for your honesty". Reversible — valid for exactly one cycle: this year all is well and you took the money; next year the mayor builds a plant behind your house — you refuse the cheque and fire him (or, as the architect clarifies, you stay not against the plant but to bargain for scrubbers and compensation — a pragmatist-shareholder, not a protester). Market — the state is a corporation, the budget is shareholders' money, the census is the price of a seat on the board.
9. Plain language for the people and for a schoolchild¶
"The people won't get this — explain it to a 14-year-old." The country is a big factory and we are all co-owners; between us and the till sits a crowd of directors and accountants who take the revenue and throw us hand-outs, making us say thank you. AB-EXIT is an automatic cash register: it pays the necessary bills and fairly divides the rest. Removing the fear "too simple, where's the catch": complexity is needed for one thing only — to steal unnoticed; to share a cake honestly you need a knife; to take half you need a ministry of cake distribution, experts and certificates for crumbs. Honesty is always simple: 2 + 2 = 4, mathematics cannot steal. This is not "free money" — nobody prints it; it is your own money that now flows past you offshore. It is like online banking: transferring to a friend in a second does not seem a miracle — politicians just do not want you to know the state can do the same. Three theses for a leaflet: It is your money — you are a shareholder, not a petitioner. Mathematics instead of an official. Complicated is when they steal; honest is when it is simple. (Protocol caveat: in §1 the dividend is tied to the median wage, not to the "budget remainder" — the leaflet simplification must not replace the formula.)
9b. "A x3 vote" is arithmetic, not a multiplier¶
The architect's clarification: "it is an approximate calculation based on current turnout and payment data; it will always be floating." The protocol contains no norm "the vote of one who stays counts as three". The weight arises by itself: if M of N voters exit for money, each one who stays decides a share of 1/(N − M) instead of 1/N, that is, weighs 1/(1 − the share who exited) times more. Half exit — x2; two thirds exit — x3; at the base exit estimate of 55–65 % — from x2.2 to x2.9. "x2/x3" in a slogan describes this effect at the expected exit; it is not a statute parameter, and the number differs in every cycle and every territory.
Two consequences. First: a legal multiplier would be meaningless — an identical coefficient for all who vote changes not a single share or result (in the table of 056d.2 the shares are the same with and without multiplication by three). Second: the objection "one person, one vote" addresses a norm the protocol does not contain: every ballot counts as one, and the weight changes exactly as it changes today under any abstention — at 50 % turnout each person who came already weighs twice as much as under full turnout, and nobody calls that a violation (013b.3, Q-LEG-005). What remains is the philosophical version of the objection (034, strike 3: equality becomes activatable), but it is not about the count.
9c. Sums are an order of magnitude, not a parameter¶
The architect's clarification: "the sums matter as an example. Obviously different cities will have different sums, but in discussion one needs to grasp the order of the figures: this is not 10,000 and not 100." The formula D = M × 1.5 × K is primary; a number in a slogan or a dialogue illustrates the order. Any sum in the repository not derived from the formula is to be read that way.
A useful invariant: at K = 1 % the dividend equals 1.5 % of the annual median wage, that is, roughly four working days of median pay — in any country. The order by the formula (medians approximate):
| Country | Annual median wage | D by the formula at K = 1 % |
|---|---|---|
| USA | ~$52 thousand | ~$780 |
| Germany | ~€45 thousand | ~€680 |
| United Kingdom | ~£31 thousand | ~£465 |
| France | ~€26–32 thousand | ~€390–480 |
| Russia | ~784 thousand roubles (Rosstat, 2025 median: 65,307 ₽/month) | ~11.8 thousand roubles |
| Moldova | ~130–170 thousand lei | ~2–2.5 thousand lei |
For rich countries the examples in the texts ("$1,000", "$1,500") lie in the same order as the formula. For France ("1,000–1,500 euros" in 055b and 048e) the gap is already three to four times, and for Russia ("70–75 thousand roubles, a month's wage" in 056d) — six to seven times: that is not "four working days" but "a month", and corresponds to K of about 6–7 %, not 1 %. These places are marked as illustrations. The coefficient K is a parameter set by the referendum of a specific territory; but arguments built on "a month's wage" must, at K = 1 %, be read as arguments about four days' pay.
What depends on this. The forecasts of the exit share and of referendum support were made for illustrative sums; the sensitivity of exit to the size of D has not been measured, and that is the first question for a pilot: at what sum a person with a short horizon (040c.1.5) takes the money. The budget estimate "1–2 % of the budget" (045, 055b.8) is computed from the formula, not from the illustrations. 🟡
9d. "Dividend" — a word everyone likes¶
The assistant proposed writing in a comparison with the voucher privatisation of 1992–94: in Russia, Moldova and the Czech Republic "a paper from the state to everyone for a share" would recall how that ended. The architect: "privatisation was two generations ago, nobody remembers it; but every day there is the word 'dividends', and everyone likes it — it is like passive income from successful investments."
Hence a rule of the vocabulary. The word "dividend" is not to be explained or defended — it already carries the required meaning: a share of what works, arriving regularly and without effort from the recipient. Do not drag along "voucher", "cheque", "compensation" or "benefit": the first two are dead, the latter two humiliate (056d §7j: a handout and a share are different acts). The difference from a voucher, if someone asks after all, in three words: not one-off, not transferable, with the price on the ballot (037, the article on protection of the dividend).
10. Weak point of the vocabulary¶
Minted formulas work in a pitch and break in court: "market census" is a gift to an opponent who will quote it in a discrimination suit; "they sell" — in jurisdictions where selling a vote is criminal — requires the construction "revocable lease/deposit", not "sale" (§45, 049). The vocabulary for the people and the vocabulary for the statute are two different documents. 🟡
Related: 033b (short manifesto) · 038 (naming) · 040d.3 (phase transition) · 040b.3 (forgone gain) · 040c.2.5 (timing) · 056d.4 (the price of coercion) · 048d (the forces) · 059b (10-usa: Musk, Milei) · 019b (the poor voter's price) · 049 (legal statute)