Rewiring Global Capital: A Systems Thinking Blueprint for the Future

What good is the world’s most powerful engine if the car has no wheels? Our financial and innovation systems today often resemble a garage full of “best in class” parts that don’t fit together – a collection of siloed investments, each optimized in isolation, yet failing to move the whole forward. It’s 2025, and the economic landscape is more turbulent and complex than ever. Yet we’re still allocating capital with a 20th-century, fragmented mindset. The result? Tremendous resources poured into narrow goals while systemic challenges fester. This manifesto lays out a different path – one based on systems thinking, idealized design, and a radical reimagining of how we fund the future. Strap in for a journey that veers from a light-hearted primer on systems, through a tongue-in-cheek dystopia, and into an inspiring vision for 20 years from now. Along the way, we’ll expose why today’s venture capital model often feels like “doing the wrong things righter”   , and how we can transform it into a force for systemic good. Are you ready to trade silos for symphonies?

Systems Thinking 101: Why Broken Systems Stay Broken

Let’s begin with the basics: what is a “system,” and why should we care? A system is not just a bunch of parts thrown together; it’s an interconnected whole with a purpose.             . Think of your body – your heart, lungs, and brain are each important, but it’s their interactions that keep you alive. If each organ optimized only for itself, you’d be in big trouble. Unfortunately, much of our thinking – including how we invest money – is reductionist. We break things into parts, optimize each piece, and assume the whole will somehow work out. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t  .

Consider a famous tale from systems guru Russell Ackoff: a team sets out to build the best car in the world. They gather the top components – the strongest engine, the highest-rated transmission, the best brakes, the comfiest seats – each from different luxury brands. They assemble this Frankenstein auto, imagining it will be a supercar. What do they end up with? A complete dud. The parts don’t fit together – the Rolls-Royce engine won’t talk to the Mercedes transmission. You don’t even get a functional car . The moral: a system’s performance comes from the interactions of its parts, not the parts alone  . An F1 engine in a go-kart chassis won’t win you any races.

Now, apply this to our capital system. If we treat capital allocation as just a sum of isolated bets – each VC fund, each startup, each corporate budget doing its own thing – we shouldn’t be surprised when the overall results fall short  . We get pockets of success in a sea of missed opportunities. It’s like an orchestra where every musician plays a brilliant solo at the same time – the cacophony is real. In business, we’ve seen divisions optimizing for their own KPIs while the company as a whole stagnates. In society, we see educational institutions, businesses, and governments each tackling pieces of a problem (sometimes the same problem) but rarely harmonizing efforts. No wonder so many big challenges seem stuck. As Ackoff noted bluntly, improving parts in isolation “may not, and often does not, improve the performance of the system taken as a whole”  . In fact, it can make things worse. Western management’s beloved mantra of “divide and conquer” often just divides, leaving the conquering part wanting  .

Reflect: Have you ever worked in a company where one department’s “win” hurt the whole organization? Or watched well-funded startups solve trivial problems while systemic crises (climate, anyone?) struggle for pennies? We live in those misaligned systems every day.

Key takeaway: When we optimize the parts and ignore the whole, we get expensive cars that don’t drive and investments that don’t deliver systemic value. To fix a broken system, we must fix how the parts fit together. And that starts with reimagining the design, not tweaking the parts.

Idealized Design: Imagining the Impossible (and Then Doing It)

How do you fix a broken system? By redesigning it so the problem disappears entirely. Enter idealized design. This approach, pioneered by Ackoff, begins with a liberating question: “If our current system was completely destroyed last night, what would we create today from scratch, with no pre-existing constraints?”  . In other words, forget for a moment all the legacy rules, silos, and “that’s just how it’s done” baggage – and imagine the ideal solution using whatever is possible right now. It’s brainstorming on rocket fuel. By assuming the old system is gone, we free ourselves from merely patching it and instead design something fundamentally better.

This isn’t just pie-in-the-sky daydreaming; it’s a practical innovation method. Why? Because once you envision your ideal end state, you can work backward to figure out how to get there (or at least a lot closer). Traditional problem-solving is like tinkering with a flawed engine – you might get a slightly smoother ride, but the fundamental issues remain. Idealized design says: scrap the engine; what would a better vehicle look like? It’s the difference between solving a problem (making the best of the status quo) and dissolving the problem (making the status quo irrelevant)    .

Let’s make this concrete. In Mexico City years ago, getting a business license was a nightmare – slow, corrupt, inefficient. A traditional fix might be “hire more clerks” or “crack down on bribes” – essentially solving or resolving the problem within the current system. Instead, the city dissolved the problem by redesigning the system: they decentralized licensing into many small offices and let them compete to serve citizens. Suddenly, no more single chokepoint; each office’s funding depended on being efficient and fair. The result? Wait times plummeted, and bribes virtually disappeared  . They didn’t just solve the symptom (long lines or corruption) – they changed the system so the symptoms no longer appeared. That’s idealized design in action.

Idealized design liberates us from the tyranny of precedent. It’s a blast of fresh air in rooms stifled by “we can’t do that because…”. Instead, we ask, “What if we could do that? How would it look?” It encourages visionary thinking – a bit like how sci-fi authors imagine future worlds, except we focus on what we can actually build with today’s technology and knowledge. Crucially, it also insists on broad participation: get all stakeholders in the room to dream the dream together  . Why? Because a system serves many purposes and people, and you’ll design a more inclusive ideal if you include diverse voices.

Sidebar: “Doing the wrong things righter” is a trap even smart people fall into. Example: A company finds its product isn’t selling because it’s solving the wrong problem. But instead of rethinking the product, they double down on marketing to sell it harder – essentially doing the wrong thing more efficiently. Idealized design would step back and ask: what’s the right thing we should be doing? In our context, if the way we allocate capital isn’t producing broad prosperity, perhaps the answer isn’t a tweak – it’s a completely new way of flowing resources to ideas.

Key takeaway: Idealized design is about skipping the Band-Aids and asking, “What’s the best we can imagine?” It’s bold, a little daring, and incredibly important if we want breakthroughs. Because if we only ever try to improve the old system, we’ll never escape its limitations. To truly transform, we must be willing to envision the ideal – and then architect the real steps to get there.

Black Mirror 2040: A Dystopian Detour (If We Don’t Change)

Let’s hop in our time machine (brace yourself, it’s not pretty). The year is 2040. Two decades of status quo capital allocation have created a world that feels like an episode of Black Mirror – disturbingly familiar, yet twisted to the extreme. What does a siloed, reductionist future look like?

Picture this: Wall Street 2040 is dominated by a handful of mega-funds whose AI algorithms hunt for the highest short-term returns in isolation. Each algorithm is a genius at maximizing its own portfolio’s profit, and each is utterly oblivious to the collateral damage. One pours billions into lab-grown meat startups while another bets against climate resilience projects; one algorithm’s win is society’s loss. No one is steering the ship; every part is steering itself. The stock market looks great – until you step outside. There, you see the unintended consequences of decades of siloed thinking.

In this 2040, entire industries have collapsed not because of a lack of innovation, but because of a lack of coordination. We optimized every tech company for viral growth and monetization, and ended up eroding social trust and mental health. (Who could have predicted that funding an addictive VR platform in isolation would help spark a nationwide anxiety epidemic? Oops.) We kept funding fossil fuel ventures a little longer for that last bit of ROI, and now coastal cities require permanent evacuation plans. Innovation stagnated in areas that didn’t yield quick profits; why cure a disease when you can invest in the next photo-sharing app with better margins?

The venture capital scene in 2040 has become a grim parody of itself. Picture a reality show called Unicorn Island. Investors, armed with virtual reality headsets and dopamine drips, bet on startups gladiator-style. Only one in 100 “unicorns” survives; the rest are slaughtered in a spectacle of hype and crash. It’s entertainment for the masses and profit for the few. Founders either burn out pivoting to chase whatever trend the AIs say will spike valuations, or they sell out to one of the Big Five Tech Titans that run half the economy. Those Titans, by the way, got so large by absorbing every competitor (funded by cutthroat VCs) that real competition is dead. It’s a winner-takes-all world on steroids, with wealth and power concentrated like never before.

Society in 2040 is a fractured landscape. Remember the “societal function of corporations… to produce and distribute wealth” that economists like Ackoff talked about?  Yeah, that memo was lost. Wealth got produced alright – huge piles of it – but distributed? Not so much. In our siloed capital dystopia, the top 1% holds almost everything, because the system never cared about the whole. Each silo did its job (make money fast), and no one paid attention to whether the entire system was veering off a cliff. Spoiler: it did. The middle class? Extinct. The public sector? Bankrupted, because who needed to pay taxes when you could domicile your AI-run fund in a Caribbean meta-country? Communities crumbled as investments flowed only to things that could yield a 10x return, not to schools or local businesses or climate adaptation. It turns out, when you treat capital like a blunt instrument, you bludgeon the very people and planet you meant to help.

Dark enough for you? Let’s sprinkle in a bit of dark humor: In 2040, there’s an app for everything except solving real problems. We have smart toasters but dumb climate policy. The most popular AR game has teens competing to “Uberize” every last human service, turning neighbors into gig-serfs. It’s absurd, but in a system that optimizes each piece for profit, absurdity thrives. We finally found aliens but only because they showed up to ask why our planet’s atmosphere is for sale as NFTs.

Alright, deep breath. This future is not one we want. It’s the extrapolation of every bad habit in today’s capital allocation, taken to its logical (nightmarish) extreme. And it serves as a stark warning: if we don’t change course, the system will drive itself off the cliff, each part cheering its record quarterly results all the way down.

Venture Capital, Meet Systems Thinking: What’s Broken and How to Fix It

Now, back to the present. Let’s shine a floodlight on venture capital (VC) – that high-octane engine of innovation – and see why it’s sputtering in our current system. VC has funded some amazing companies, no doubt. But it’s also fundamentally flawed in design for the world we live in. Why? Because traditional VC operates like a silo on steroids.

Misaligned incentives? Check. VCs raise money from limited partners (LPs) with the promise of outsized returns. They succeed by hitting home runs (the famous unicorns) – meaning they often don’t mind if 90% of their portfolio startups fail, as long as one or two blow up big. This “spray and pray” approach optimizes for individual fund performance, but let’s step back – is that systemically efficient? From a whole-system view, that means an incredible amount of wasted potential and effort. Startups are encouraged to grow at all costs to become that one big winner, often burning talent and ideas that might have been viable with a steadier, more cooperative approach. The current model is a gladiator pit: many companies enter, few leave standing. It’s great for the lone survivor, and great for the fund that backed the survivor – but what about the broader innovation ecosystem?

Siloed, isolated bets? Oh yes. Each VC fund is typically doing its own thing, competing with other funds, often duplicating efforts. How many ride-sharing startups got VC money at the same time, all trying to conquer the same cities with nearly identical models? The answer: a lot. Most of them died, resulting in one or two winners. From the system perspective, was this gladiatorial duplication really the best way to allocate resources? What if, instead, investors had pooled efforts to coordinate solutions to transportation in cities – perhaps funding complementary companies that together could build a transit ecosystem (ride-share + micro-mobility + public transit integration)? Instead, the silo model gave us a few giants and a graveyard of failed competitors, and cities still struggling with congestion and transit gaps. The whole was less than the sum of its parts.

Short-term thinking? Guilty as charged. VCs typically run on 5-10 year fund cycles. The pressure to exit (IPO, acquisition) means that even if a startup is doing good for society, if it can’t promise a sell-off at a huge multiple, it’s often passed over. Long-term projects (think sustainable infrastructure, climate resilience, education innovation) that might truly pay off for society get underfunded because they don’t fit the quick- return mold. In a siloed capital system, nobody’s incentivized to fund the “boring” but essential pieces of the future if they can’t capture the value inside their silo. It’s like each part of our earlier orchestra refusing to play background harmony – everyone wants to be the flashy soloist. The result is music that’s flashy in moments and awful overall.

We also see misaligned values. Venture capital chases financial ROI, almost exclusively. Social or environmental impact? That’s a niche “impact investing” sideshow, not center stage. But recall the social system view Ackoff described: organizations (and by extension, capital) should serve not just themselves but the broader society in which they exist. The current VC model largely ignores this. It might claim “we fund the future,” but it often funds things that maximize returns over things that maximize well-being. When capital is divorced from context, it can inadvertently fuel problems – like funding arms producers without accountability, or social media platforms that erode democracy – simply because the numbers looked good.

So, how do we fix venture capital with systems thinking? We make it relationship-centric and coherence- driven. That means funding networks, not just nodes; looking at ecosystems, not just egosystems.

• Relationship-centric capital is about recognizing that value is created in networks. A startup’s success isn’t just its own doing – it depends on suppliers, customers, talent, infrastructure. Investors in a relationship-centric model would invest in the web of relationships. Imagine VC funds collaborating to ensure all the complementary pieces of a solution get built. If you fund an electric car company, why not also fund the battery recycler, the charging network, and the skills training program for mechanics? Instead of throwing one big bet into one Tesla and hoping the market figures out the rest, a systemic approach would intentionally co-invest to build coherent systems. The payoff? The whole ecosystem succeeds and reinforces itself, rather than one winner taking all and leaving value on the table (or requiring the government to later step in and fund charging stations, for example).

• Systemic coherence means the investments align toward a larger vision or problem space. It’s like composing a portfolio as a symphony rather than a random playlist. Each investment has its solo, sure, but also contributes to an overarching theme. For example, a VC firm might decide: “We’re going to help reinvent sustainable food.” Instead of just funding one lab-grown meat startup and hoping it beats all others, they could fund multiple startups each tackling the food system (one on alt-proteins, one on reducing food waste, one on regenerative agriculture tech) and facilitate them to share insights, technology, and even resources. The VC becomes more of an ecosystem curator than a gladiator bookie. The value of each company is amplified by the others – the whole network becomes resilient and valuable. Contrast that with today: if one startup stumbles, tough luck; in a coherent network, if one stumbles, others adapt or help it up, because they’re interlinked.

• Aligned incentives and timelines: In a reimagined model, investors could structure capital with longer horizons and broader success metrics. Instead of a hard 7-year fund, maybe an evergreen fund or a network of funds that can recycle successes into new opportunities (like some modern mutual companies or cooperatives, but at VC scale). Perhaps LPs (the big money behind VCs, like pension funds and endowments) could agree to measure success not just on IRR (internal rate of return) but on systemic impact: Did this capital deployment create jobs and environmental gains and sustainable businesses? That might sound wishful, but some pioneers are already pushing in this direction. We can formalize it: require KPIs for relationship value – e.g., how many partnerships did a startup form? How much knowledge was shared among portfolio companies? How did one investment improve the prospects of another? These are tangible things that could be measured as signs of a healthy ecosystem approach.

• From competition to collaboration: This doesn’t mean everything is Kumbaya; competition can still exist, but it’s healthy competition within a collaborative framework. Perhaps VCs coordinate via industry consortiums or ecosystem DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) that pool certain resources for common infrastructure. For instance, multiple funds could jointly fund an open- source tech platform that all their health-tech startups use, rather than each making their own (wasting money and creating redundant work). Shared infrastructure, shared standards, shared learning – these reduce waste and let each startup focus on what it does best while benefiting from collective investments that no single startup could afford alone.

In short, fixing VC means redesigning the game. Today’s game: each investor maximizes their own return, period. Tomorrow’s game: investors win by maximizing the network’s return, which includes financial, social, and environmental dividends. It’s shifting from a zero-sum tournament to a positive-sum collaboration. Skeptics might say, “Nice in theory, but will it make money?” Our answer: a well-designed system can outperform in the long run because it’s more resilient and taps more opportunities. Remember, effectiveness (doing the right whole thing) beats mere efficiency (doing the narrow thing right) when the narrow thing was wrong to begin with. And right now, a lot of venture capital is efficiently chasing goals that aren’t holistically right.

Painting the Future: A Vision of Capitalism Reborn (2045 Edition)

Jump ahead to the year 2045, but this time let’s visit a different timeline – a hopeful one. This is a future where we applied systems thinking and idealized design starting in the 2020s to reinvent how we invest in innovation and society. The result? A capital system that feels as if someone finally read the instruction manual for humanity and optimized for the whole.

In 2045, venture capital, governments, universities, and grassroots innovators are all part of intertwined networks focused on big challenges and opportunities. Think of it like a vast garden (as opposed to a battleground). Different “gardeners” – VCs, public funds, NGOs – tend to different plants, but all coordinate to cultivate the entire ecosystem. They share information constantly; an AI-driven platform maps out needs and resources in real time. If there’s an drought in one area (say, a critical underfunded research in battery tech), the system flags it and resources are redirected collaboratively to address it. It’s dynamic, adaptive capital flow guided by a shared vision, rather than capital locked in silos or chasing the trend of the week.

Central to this future are new roles like vision architects – people (often aided by AI) whose job is to look at the big picture and design investment strategies that span across traditional boundaries. They might sit in a fund, or a government, or a coalition of all of the above, and they function like orchestra conductors. With advanced AI prompts and simulations, these vision architects can foresee the ripple effects of certain investments: If we fund this new water purification tech, how will it impact public health, the local economy, the environment? – and they ensure those considerations are baked into decisions. They don’t work top-down telling everyone what to do; rather, they facilitate a collective intelligence where all stakeholders’ knowledge is integrated. It’s as if the venture ecosystem grew a brain and some eyes.

Let’s illustrate with a scenario: By 2045, the world is committed to climate resilience based on a promise made on 2025. There’s a myriad Climate Solutions Hubs that isn’t a single company or fund, but a self-organizing alliances of startups, communities, investors, and AI advisors. A town facing rising sea levels can plug into this network and say, “Hey, we need solutions.” The network (with AI assistance) matches them with startups working on flood prevention, connects them to government funds for climate adaptation, and brings in a VC consortium that has a long-term stake in sustainable infrastructure. They all negotiate collectively, maybe through a smart contract or DAO that ensures everyone’s incentives align (the town gets what it needs, the startups get a committed customer and data, the investors get a return tied to the success of the project in real outcomes, not just money flipping). Capital flows like blood in a healthy body, going where it’s needed, when it’s needed, in coordination with the whole organism                                                    .

AI plays a crucial role, not as a replacement for human vision but as an enabler. Imagine AI models that continuously learn from every project – what succeeded, what failed, and why – covering Ackoff’s five types of learning: data, information, knowledge, understanding, wisdom. This “learning support system” helps prevent repeated mistakes. It catches errors of omission (great ideas that were missed) and errors of commission (bad calls that were made) , and it feeds that wisdom back into the network. In 2045, it’s normal for investment ecosystems to hold regular retrospectives (much like agile software teams do) where they openly discuss failures and surprises, not to blame, but to improve. A culture of continuous learning pervades the capital system. For example, if a promising health startup failed because it lacked access to patient data, the network notes that and later ensures a data-sharing agreement is in place for the next similar venture. Nothing is wasted – every experience becomes fuel for better decisions.

Crucially, 2045’s capital system is guided by values beyond profit. Remember how we lamented that current capital often ignores ethical and aesthetic values? In this future, those are front and center. People realized somewhere along the way that money is a means, not an end. So investments are routinely evaluated by multi-dimensional metrics. A venture might be rated on its “Financial Return” and “Social Return” and “Environmental Return” and even “Joy Return” – yes, there’s an index for quality of life and inspiration generated. This isn’t fluff; it’s recognized that a thriving society is one where capital creates holistic value. Investors in 2045 brag not just about their ROI, but about how many lives their portfolio improved, or how their investments increased the biodiversity of an ecosystem, or how they preserved cultural richness. As fanciful as that sounds, consider that in 2025 we already started to measure things like ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) impact. By 2045, it’s refined and deeply integrated – an investor’s reputation and success depends on a balanced scorecard of outcomes.

Oh, and the public is along for the ride. With technology and transparency, investing in 2045 is far more democratic. Platforms allow citizens to direct a portion of public budgets to the innovations they most want to see, akin to participatory budgeting on steroids. There are innovation DAOs where regular people hold tokens that represent stakes in problem-solving missions – imagine a “Clean Air DAO” that anyone can support, which then allocates funds to startups, research, and projects tackling air pollution. It’s not just elites in Sand Hill Road making decisions in isolation; it’s a networked, participatory process. Because of this, there’s a sense of shared ownership in the outcomes. When a new technology eradicates malaria, everyone who contributed (whether money, knowledge, or advocacy) shares the kudos and reward. This keeps the ethos human-centered: capital serves people, not the other way around          .

In summary, 2045 in our idealized scenario is not utopia – humans will always have challenges – but it’s a world where capital allocation itself is no longer one of the problems. It’s a world where capital has a conscience and a brain, where money is constantly in motion solving, not in storage hoarding, where cooperation is competitive (because it produces better results) and where “purpose” and “profit” are friends, not enemies. It’s the kind of world we might still build – if we heed the lessons of systems thinking and start redesigning now.

The New Playbook: Practical Steps to Start Today

Alright, visionary stuff aside, you might be thinking: This sounds great, but how do we get from here to there? Fair question. We can’t teleport to 2045’s ideal state, but we can start bending the arc of our current system toward it. Here’s a concrete playbook for venture capitalists, investors, and really any capital allocator who wants to be part of the solution rather than the problem:

1. Foster Portfolio Synergy: Don’t treat your investments as independent slots in a spreadsheet. Instead, actively create connections among them. Host regular portfolio meetups for your startups to share knowledge and tools. Encourage (and even fund) joint projects between companies in your portfolio that have complementary tech or markets. Measure this – for instance, track how many collaborations or resource-shares happen due to your introduction. Make “1+1=3” outcomes the expectation. If you’re investing in a fintech app and a cybersecurity solution, get them talking about secure financial services. If you back an e-commerce platform and a green packaging startup, encourage them to work together on sustainable supply chains. Every portfolio should be an ecosystem, not just a bingo card of bets.

2. Invest in Shared Infrastructure: Some problems are too big or too systemic for any one startup to tackle alone – and they don’t have to. If five AI startups in your circle all need better access to compute power or a curated dataset, consider co-funding an open resource they can all use. If multiple companies could benefit from a new standard or platform (like an interoperability standard in healthcare data), lobby for it, fund a non-profit to build it, or use your influence to bring players together to create it. This is where ecosystem DAOs or consortia can shine: competitors can become collaborators on foundational layers that help everyone. By pooling resources on the commons, you reduce redundant costs and accelerate innovation. Yes, it feels weird for VCs to cooperate – do it anyway. Coopetition (cooperative competition) is the name of the new game.

3. Adopt New Success Metrics: Redefine what winning means for your fund. Sure, you have to deliver financial returns – that stays. But add metrics like “Net Stakeholder Benefit” or a Relationship Health Index. For example, survey the employees of your portfolio companies: did the VC’s involvement improve their work life and growth? Track carbon footprint across your investments; set a target that your portfolio will be carbon-neutral or better through offsets or choices of ventures. Report on how many external partnerships each startup forms – and reward founders who build with others, not just those who go it alone. Imagine bragging in your annual report that 100% of your portfolio companies share technology or customers with each other, or that your portfolio’s employee satisfaction scores are in the top decile. These are selling points to LPs too, by the way, as they signal lower risk and higher systemic resilience. Make relationship value as tangible as revenue.

4. Lengthen Your Horizon (where possible): Not every fund can be a 20-year fund (limited partners have their own constraints). But you can structure things to support longer-term plays. Could you create an opportunity fund that specifically invests follow-on capital in portfolio companies that are progressing steadily but need more time (rather than only chasing the rocketships)? Can you set aside some capital for projects with a slower burn but big potential impact, communicating to LPs that these are like the “bond” portion of the portfolio – stable, slower growth, but solid and important? Also, lobby LPs and regulators: if we can get more evergreen venture funds or public- private hybrid funds, do it. Celebrate patient capital. Consider revenue-based financing or other models for some startups instead of forcing every company to aim for an acquisition or IPO. Not everything should or will 10x in 5 years – and that’s okay if it’s still creating value and healthy profit. We need funding models for those steady builders, or else we’ll miss entire swaths of innovation.

5. Build (and Be) Ecosystem Architects: Dedicate some of your team’s time to being vision architects for the domains you invest in. This means zooming out and mapping the landscape: what complementary players (startups, NGOs, gov programs, academic labs) exist or are needed? Where are the gaps? Instead of just scouting for the next deal, scout for partnerships that could amplify your current deals. Hire people with diverse backgrounds – maybe that urban planner can help your smart city startups coordinate with local governments, or that ecologist can guide your agri-tech investments to work together for regional impact. Train your team in systems thinking. Yes, literally invest in their learning (Ackoff’s books are a good start!). Make “How does this benefit the whole system?” a key question in every investment memo. If the answer is thin, rethink the deal or how you can structure it to be more systemic. Sometimes this might mean passing on a deal that would make money but hurt the ecosystem. Conversely, it might mean backing an unorthodox partnership because together they solve a bigger problem.

6. Enable Participatory Capital: Open up the ivory tower a bit. Can you involve more voices in your decision-making? Perhaps create an advisory council of various stakeholders – e.g., a representative from the community your product targets, an ethicist, a customer – to weigh in on investments that will affect them. This is the participative principle in action  . Or allocate a small percentage of your fund for crowd-coordinated investments (some VCs do syndicates or allow crowdfunding alongside; take that further). If you support a healthcare startup, maybe let a group of doctors or even patients invest a small piece – their involvement will bring insight and accountability. By weaving stakeholders into the process, you ensure the ventures are more grounded in reality and need, not just glittering pitch decks. It also spreads the sense of ownership and reduces the “us vs. them” feeling between Silicon Valley and everyone else.

7. Promote a Learning Culture: This one is internal and external. Internally, encourage your team and portfolio to view failures as learning, not as shameful secrets. Share post-mortems of projects openly. Externally, push for industry-wide knowledge sharing. Why should every startup or VC learn the same hard lesson in AI ethics or market timing separately? Create forums where investors regularly swap notes on what’s working systemically. Perhaps establish an “open-source” database of case studies of both successful and failed investments, analyzing systemic impact. Use industry associations to publish best practices for relationship-centric funding. If someone figures out a great way to do equitable profit-sharing with communities, amplify it. Essentially, hack the industry norms: make learning fast and shared. In the ideal future, remember, the whole system learns together – start that now.

8. Align and Collaborate with Other Capital Sources: Venture capital doesn’t exist in a vacuum and I know many already interact, but not as much as it is needed nowadays. There are government grants, corporate venture arms, banks, crowdfunding, etc. Today these often operate in parallel lanes. Start bridging those gaps. If you’re a VC, build ties with a government innovation agency – maybe you co-fund a project where the government provides de-risking funds and you provide scale-up funds. If you’re an institution, partner with a community foundation or an impact fund to combine your different strengths. Systemic problems need capital from multiple angles. Create hybrid funding models: e.g., a climate tech venture might get some philanthropic money (for the early R&D), some VC money (for growth), and some loan guarantees from a development bank (for deploying infrastructure). Structure these in from the start rather than leaving it to chance. By weaving a capital ecosystem, you ensure that at each stage of a venture or project’s life, the right kind of funding and support is available. No promising solution should wither just because it didn’t fit a narrow investor’s mandate. If you truly believe in an innovation, hustle to bring in others who can cover where you can’t.

Each of these steps is actionable now. They don’t require waiting for permission or new laws or some global revolution. They require a shift in mindset and some creative effort. Yes, it’s easier to just run the old playbook – but recall our dystopia. The old playbook leads to a dead end. The good news: every single bullet above has at least a seed in the current world. Some enlightened investors already host portfolio synergy summits. A few funds have longer structures or measure impact. Initiatives like “open startups” and collaborative innovation challenges are popping up. Think of these as early sprouts of the new system – our job is to nurture them, multiply them, and push them into the mainstream.

Call to Action: From Vision to Reality

We’ve journeyed through the theory of systems, a method to dream up better designs, a nightmare scenario to avoid, a utopian possibility to strive for, and a down-to-earth playbook to start making change. Now it’s time to turn this manifesto into a movement. And that starts with you – the reader, whether you’re an investor, a founder, part of an institution, or simply a concerned global citizen.

Ask yourself: What role am I playing in the grand system of capital and innovation? Am I the isolated gear, content with spinning faster even if the machine is malfunctioning? Or will I be an ecosystem architect, helping design and assemble a better whole? The beauty of systems thinking is it teaches us that small changes can have big ripple effects – if they’re in the right place. You might be one connection away from catalyzing a new network, one question away from reframing a problem, one bold experiment away from inspiring an entire industry.

We don’t pretend this is easy. Changing the way money flows and decisions are made is as challenging as anything out there. But it’s far from impossible. The seeds of this revolution are already visible – in collaborative funds, in regenerative economics, in the spreading realization that gross domestic product isn’t the only measure of progress, and that shareholder value alone can’t sustain us in the long run. People are hungry for meaning and impact, not just returns. Capital, ironically, has a heart – it’s the people behind it. And hearts can change.

So here’s our invitation: Join us in reimagining your role as an ecosystem builder. If you’re a VC, try out one of the playbook steps and share your results. If you’re a founder, push your investors for more than money – ask for ecosystem support, suggest partnerships with their other portfolio companies, hold them to a higher standard. If you’re an LP (the big money), demand that your funds operate with systemic responsibility. If you’re a policy maker, create incentives for collaborative investment and remove hurdles that force zero-sum competition. And if you’re the public, keep raising your voice – ultimately, all capital is society’s capital, and it should serve society’s needs.

We stand at a crossroads. Down one road, the silos get taller, the echo chambers louder, and the system eventually collapses under its own myopic weight. Down the other, we see the messy, exhilarating construction of something new – a relationship-centric, system-smart, inclusive way of investing in our collective future. The second road is harder, no doubt. It asks us to unlearn habits and confront biases. It asks for trust and cooperation where cynicism and competition have long ruled. But mile by mile, with each step taken by people like you who believe in the possible, that road will take us to a far better destination.

We’ll conclude with a question, one that we hope lingers in your mind as you go back to your day-to-day work: What part will I play in creating the future we truly want? Every decision to fund (or not fund) something, every startup pitch you consider, every organizational policy you vote on – those are opportunities to turn this manifesto from words into reality.

The manifesto doesn’t end here. It’s alive in each conversation you spark about systemic change, each bold move to collaborate across silos, each idealistic design session you hold before diving into the next project. Let’s write the next chapter together – one where capital, in all its sophisticated glory, finally serves its real purpose: to produce and elevate wealth and well-being, wisely and for the benefit of all   .

The future is watching, and it’s asking us: Will we do the wrong things righter, or the right things wiser? The choice is ours – and the time to choose is now. Let’s dare to redesign our world. Let’s prove that symphonies beat silos any day. Let’s make this vision happen, one systemic step at a time.

Stay tuned for the next article where we will explore how to get something going with systems thinking by presenting an example with a VC.

Thanks for reading! Don't forget to add the funny smiley if you got this far so I can know who reads until the end, I appreciate you and I look forward to continue providing you with some value and entertaining texts.