Newsletter

P.R.O.T.E.A.N. : Why we all need one.

pro·tean [ˈprəʊtɪən, prəʊˈtiːən] adjective tending or able to change frequently or easily: "it is difficult to comprehend the whole of this protean subject" able to do many different things; versatile

Dominic Sedrani

27 Jul 2025 — 9 min read

After this little tidbit…

We left it at a bit of a promise , and here come the fulfilment of that promise.

We have hundreds of names for this thing, depending on which aspect or part of it we’re describing… But today we’re naming the “type” of economical actor that we need which today simply does not exist. And the funny thing is that this type is not illegal or against anything at all… yet is universally feared by all other organisations out there, out of not other rational reason than that it is a new thing.

So while the current group accepts that all they’ve ever done isn’t good… they can’t accept that anything else is allowed to fix it. Nothing new is allowed to come up , since the current group didn’t come up with it. And the current group prefers to keep things the same, while accepting it should change at the same time.

So we keep asking the ones that are selling the problem , to solve it, which they always say they’ve been doing anyways.

This won’t solve itself. We need to do something here. And we need to do it differently than all past failed attempts, in stead of repeating the same problems all over again.

This new type of organisation we’re building is codenamed P.R.O.T.E.A.N.

As a word it is defined in dictionaries as such.

pro·tean [ˈprəʊtɪən, prəʊˈtiːən]

adjective tending or able to change frequently or easily: "it is difficult to comprehend the whole of this protean subject"

able to do many different things; versatile

And as an Acronym is spells out …

Platform for Regenerative Organic Transformation & Economic Anti-Necrosis

Platform

It’s a type of organisation that serves as a platform once engaging in a self-similar communication paradigm with others of it’s kind.

One of them isn’t a platform , but a group of them are.

Their organisational limitations are constructed in such a way that they can only create a self-organising network that pro-actively reject malfunctioning nodes based on their continuous communication flows which can’t be avoided since they are also designed to neccesitate creating this self-organising network).

Its communication paradigm with organisation of the same type is completely different from the communication paradigms it will need to have with the citizens , governments and customers in the geographical region where it is active.

Regenerative Organic Transformation

There are many ways you could describe the “protocol” of the fact that all solutions attempted by a P.R.O.T.E.A.N. organisation need to be measurably concluded within 1 calendar year.

To us it seems the paradigm of “Minimalism” is the most apt , when properly understanding all the science and math involved in “Emerging properties” of predicting the outcomes of changes in space-filling networks in an infinite collection of Nash-Equilibria in flux. Look all of those things up if any of them aren’t completely understood , and if you don’t want too… You’ll just have to take our word for it.

Any changes attempted need to conclude and be properly valued within one year… and they need to be the absolute most minilastic change that could be conceived while still expecting to be solving the identified problem as effectively as possible. This organisation completely rejects the volume of how much it could be busy with… but is completely obsessed with how succesfull it could have been in execution. Nothing is ever good enough for this organisation and it has always failed in doing better. Everything it does is concluded to be wrong and guilty of things… and it’s innocence doesnt only need to be proven before it goes and does anything… but it will have to go an even more rigorious process once the results are known too.

This seems like something you can’t motivate anyone for… but in a team that’s used to this after 2 or 3 smaller scale examples, that’s really not that complicated a thing at all. It’s just some things that a handfull of people need to unlearn , and a few new things they need to learn which can all be thaught in about a day or 3.

This organisation will only be allowed to operate within a single community , will one use labour and skills present in that community and only attempt changes that can be executed , measured and evaluated within a single year.

It’s not forbidden to attempt the exact same thing next year if multiple chained results are needed to be evaluated for some reason.

And any change can only be attempted when it’s clearly a “regenerative organic transformation”. A measurable change that is more organic than the problem was and can clearly show a regenerative growth cycle once it starts. If it isn’t that , it needs no doing whatsoever.

Economic Anti-Necrosis

What’s going on in this world , when it comes to all economical, technological and societal solutions that have been attempted in the past 200 years… It is very clear to observe that the only thing they’ve all done is to increase the occurance of necrosis in the fabric of society that they were implemented in.

We wrote about that before.

And here is another example of that same necrosis.

And here is another example of that same necrosis.

and here’s the absolute worst one of them all… Since it’s almost impossible to get people to see how all these things have the same core issue you all want to avoid… because you’ve once magically believed in their results and it’s difficult to give up on a belief you can’t explain why you ever followed it.

And no… I’m really sorry , but international politics isn’t going to save you from that either, since they’re also infused with the same communication paradigm of those faulty directions , and necrosis is most prevalent in all organisation that are involved on that level. This is undeniable.

And it just plays out like this… We all know that.

No matter what you want to debate about and how , and not matter which side of the cultural, economical, religious or sectarian discussion you are on...

We can all agree things haven't been getting better in a whole on this planet, and we can all argee that we have thus far failed to create a type of organization that does not suffer the same problems and diseases we've been complaining about anyways.

In the end all ideological discussion ends with both sides agreeing neither of them can think of anything better than violence and then trying to save themselves by taking from either the future, or others and usually both. During this agressive phase of stealing they both yell very loudly their lack of a solution is better than the other side’s lack of a solution and both sides have rationalized their agression and cannibalism that way.

The final option left for the incompetent. And that’s something we all also can agree on. Obviously humanity is incompetent in handling things well… but now we’ve also given up on even trying to find better things and we keep repeating the same mistakes while the ones who have a higher chance of taking things due to violence keep telling the “lesser” (in their eyes) , that they shoud just give up trying to do better, because they did , and it made it possible for them to give in to their cannibalism and in then in their mind, so should you.

All economocally active organisations work like this too now today. All over the world.

All for-profit businesses are stuck in a system where they can’t even be born without government support , after which it’s impossible to be viable without being incredibly creative jumping around all kinds of taxation laws , and without being less than honerable.

Nobody wants to admit it, but this entire economical model is completely based on the assumption that an economy based completely on a group of elements that are all solely motivated by the paradigms of lying and extraction through agression could lead to an emerging property of anything else than lying and extraction.

If you’ve come to the conclusion your business can’t be profitable by being completely honest and perfectly honourable and compliant… Then you’re rationalising immorality in the situation where that business operates in. That’s simple logic, and any other conclusion is denial.

And that inherent agressiveness of an organisation … we’re then talking about mental agression, physical agression, spiritual agression and emotional agression… all are not only allowed they say but even then all are heavily stimulated as expected behaviour from all direct contributors to that economy. The “businesses”.

Because either you’re running one, or you’re working for one… so “employees” arent direct contributors to any economy… ever.. They are just a “tool” in that economy… And the more you stimulate that behaviour in all business… the worse this gets.

And to solve all that, it is but logical we need new types of organizations with different communication paradigms.

If it's accepted that the solution for all of this requires an organization that is immune to the problems we've so far have identified , and this immune organization would be self sufficient without negative effects elsewhere... than it will be a viable life-form within it's environment and have a positive effect on that environment.

Once that is achieved, the only thing that is needed to keep an eye on, is not the detailed operations of each of those organizations, but simply the measurement of their impact and results.

We'll come back to that overarching concept , but to be able to understand that properly, more insight is needed about just how completely different the internal operations of that P.R.O.T.E.A.N. type organization would have to be.

And since there are "limits” literally everywhere… even in how long a story is allowed to be… We’ll have to tune in again at a later date to learn more. ;)