X-Message-Number: 6519
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 96 18:17:47
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: Prometheus comments
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
July 12, 1996
Re: Prometheus questions
I can't post a more detailed reply until next week after Alcor's
Board of Director's meeting, and I don't have as much time on my hands as
some of you folks obviously do. But I need to comment on a few ideas put
out over the past few days.
>Message #6494
>From: Peter Merel <>
>Subject: Pricing Prometheus
>Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:13:54 +1000 (EST)
>
>But I should think that prometheus should be of vital concern to all the
>orgs regardless of this incentive - after all, if an org didn't own shares
>in the thing, they'd certainly be in trouble on two fronts; firstly they'd
>be giving up what may be a tremendous future source of funds, and secondly
>they'd be pretty much admitting that they had no real interest in doing
>their best to make cryonics actually succeed.
That's not a good assessment, Peter. There are many possible
legitimate reasons why an organization might not make the Prometheus
Project a "vital concern."
1. Many people on CryoNet (and some of our members who write us) seem
confident that somebody out there *knows* what lines of research will work
and that money is the only barrier to the success of cryonics. That
assumption is purely wrong. Money is only the FIRST barrier to overcome
so we can find out what the other barriers are. Yes, there are some
interesting directions for research; yes, the vitrification research of
Greg Fahy is one of those directions. But there are many possible
pitfalls; and it is possible that the Prometheus managers will chose a
dead-end research path with a giant money sink-hole by its side. All
research is risky. How do we know THIS one will work?
2. Anyone who invests in any cryonics-oriented research in the
anticipation of "a tremendous future source of funds" is a fool of the
worst kind. Even solving the question of suspended animation does not
assure profits. There are many risks in patents and product development
which could stifle actual profits. There is still the risk that we will
have the answer and NO ONE IN SOCIETY WILL CARE BESIDES US.
Anyone who invests in the Prometheus Project had better be sure they
understand they are "investing" in their own survival and in the hope of a
practical scientific breakthrough. If they someday get profits, that is
great; but as a profit-making investment, any company like this is HIGH
RISK. This may turn out to be the right direction; but invest for the
right reasons, not because you have dollar signs in your eyes.
3. An organization could determine that its support for Prometheus would
not result in any benefit for its members (for instance, if the technology
advancements would not be available to them). I am glad to see that the
Prometheus supporters are trying very hard to prevent this from becoming
an issue.
4. Some cryonics organizations could decide that they have better (or at
least equally possible) alternate directions for research that they wish
to support. This does NOT mean "they had no real interest in doing their
best to make cryonics actually succeed." It would just mean that they
chose not to put all of their eggs in this particular basket.
If Alcor supports the Prometheus Project in some manner, it will be
because we decide it is *a good idea*, not because it happens to be the
idea of the moment.
Personally, I like the general business discussion I have seen so
far and Paul's careful attempts to keep organizational politics out of it.
Whether that turns into useful science or financial success in the future
is anyone's guess.
>Message #6487
>Date: 09 Jul 96 14:36:49 EDT
>From: Paul Wakfer <>
>Subject: Prometheus - A Pledger's Ideas
[much deleted]
>Proxy Power for Donors
>
> I believe that it would be very beneficial for the project and will
>strengthen its nonpartisan goal, if all organizations which contribute by
>accumulating donation pledges into share purchase pledges by the
>organization would also assign the donor to be their proxy over the
>shares which his or her donation will enable them to purchase. In this
>way organizations will not have any *major* blocks of shares under their
>direct control and the company will be directed by a truer democracy of
>its individual monetary supporters. Therefore, I ask all pledgers to
>request from their cryonics organization that they be allowed to be the
>proxy holder of the shares which their donations will purchase.
It is probably NOT possible for Alcor to give or even suggest that
donors get proxies on investments. A tax-exempt donation CANNOT legally
give anyone even the *appearance* of ownership of stock in a for-profit
corporation. The IRS frowns upon this. We might just possibly get away
with making donors part of a committee to provide advice; but even that
creates a separate set of problems. And we haven't had very good luck with
random people being placed on committees.
I think Alcor (and other tax-exempt non-profits) will have to say
"No" to proxies. It implies a relationship between the Donor and Alcor
that cannot legally exist. A donation IS a donation, not a "pretend-
donation to be treated like an investment."
from Paul again:
>could get royalty free use of the technology for the specified time
>periods by putting in $100K per year for 10 years. 6. $100K per year
>should be relatively easy for a large organization like Alcor. All they
>would need to do, would be to get a little over a quarter of their
>members to each donate $1000 per year.
Well, maybe it would NOT be so easy. First, Alcor has only had that
level of donation once in the past several years, and that was the money
we raised for the move to Arizona. And we have a lot of libertarians who
ONLY want to invest and hate the very concept of donations. And this
would mean that Alcor has to raise $100,000 per year MORE than the
donations already required to run the organization.
But more importantly, the IRS limits Alcor and other tax-exempt non-
profits in how much they can accept in ongoing donations from a living
individual. We cannot accept yearly donations so large that a small
handful of individuals appear to be the majority supporters of the
organization. This situation could turn the company into a private
foundation (which would be taxed differently and would have different
restrictions on donations).
The IRS would still count donations to Alcor which were intended to
be invested in a research company as *donations to Alcor*. We will
probably have to advise any larger players to invest in Prometheus
directly instead of donating to Alcor for investment. If we could also
count "Alcor members who directly invest in Prometheus" toward some
financial goal (such as who gets use of the technology), then some high
figure like $100,000 per year *might* be doable.
[This post is not a commitment from Alcor to any particular numbers
or structures, and it does not constitute support for nor opposition to
the Prometheus Project. Alcor's Directors have not yet made a decision on
what level of support they will offer to the Prometheus Project.]
Steve Bridge
Stephen Bridge, President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027
for general requests
http://www.alcor.org
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6519