frequently asked questions:
one of the united nations sustainable development goals is no poverty. in fact, it’s their first goal and it’s not mentioned on your site? why is that?
i thought about it for a long time before i removed it. the goal no poverty is problematic for two reasons:
for one, it’s not a real goal in the sense no poverty is only possible if you limit people’s freedom. meaning, when you allow people to choose there will always be two cities so to speak; the rich and the poor. as another said, the poor will always be among us. this is a harsh reality best understood in the context of our daily life. everyday we make these decisions. every day we get to choose if we are going to be rich, or poor. when we don’t get to choose is its own issue.
secondly, conflicted, we chose to use the term “poverty eradication” and then we decided to eradicate the first goal altogether and replace it with a smarter goal: investing in our future.
when it comes to an idea such as “poverty eradication”, i was uncertain about the word “eradication”. i think its definition and usage is appropriate, however, it lends to implications that are problematic such as “the eradication of the impoverished”. would “alleviation” be a better word? i thought ”alleviation” is the likely outcome, however, that’s not the goal i would like to communicate. this is just an example of potential problems i foresee regarding my study, research, and work. this work always requires scholarship and expertise outside my own perspective.
right now, the artificial intelligent chat bots like ChatGPT and Gemini, they struggle with some of these distinctions particularly because of the ever expanding guardrails placed on them.
this is why academic freedom is also important to us.
what’s your relationship with the united nations?
this is a really great question. we are still figuring that out. 🤝
when i originally started working with the university at buffalo i told them i had three goals for my project: zero poverty, zero emissions, and zero waste. these goals were based on my response to bill gates book “how to avoid a climate disaster”.
however, while preparing for a study abroad trip i was introduced to the sustainability goals. when i took a look at the course, took a look at the goals, and took a look at my calendar i noticed the trip spanned seventeen days and there was seventeen goals. so i decided i will take the seventeen days to build a website to reflect the 17 goals and expand my project.
it was perfect timing because the course turned out to be an effort to get me to view my project as social work. i grasped what i could from a policy standpoint and rejected the restriction to the social work field.
later i decided to use artificial intelligence to help me create new frameworks for the goals. i think my new frameworks are a workable guide to actually achieving the goals. a recent supreme court ruling in the united states on the use of derivative work was perfect timing for me to accelerate this process.
your original goals were based on bill gates book “how to avoid a climate disaster” how did that come about?
i was in the library with my daughter and i randomly picked the book up. after reading the first few chapters i began to grasp the scope and nature of bill’s problems. the realization was enough for me to make the difficult decision to make a professional pivot. it was a difficult decision because i would be moving on to my third career.
at my age, starting a new career comes with its risks. before making my final decision, i shared my thoughts with my then team lead. she tried to convince me to stay onboard her team and organization because she had picked up bryan stevenson’s book “just mercy” and thought we could make an impact.
i countered by letting her know i had picked up bill gate’s book and thought we could make an impact. the differing factor was the way i saw it. if i don’t help bill gates solve his problems, then the bryan stevenson problem would be the least of our problems.
you were trying to raise $150,000,000,000? are you serious? what kind of ponzi…
yes. when i got to the university of buffalo in my first meetings I asked for $150,000,000,000 and a building so i can build the “center for tomorrow”. they already had the building called the “center for tomorrow” sitting empty. i think their catering company was using it for storage. they said, “no!”.
then i met with their sustainability director and i pitched the development of new standards for leed (leadership in energy and environmental design). he said, “no.”. in fact, he said more than “no”. he explained the inner workings of the university of buffalo. in short, they legally can’t invest, and then he said there’s no way i can undermine the decades of work by leed.
i took those “no!”’s with a grain of salt, switched strategies, and made the decision to go private. how else can i raise $150,000,000,000. so i began development through their incubators and this triggered a series of internal conflicts within the university, that ultimately “graduated” me in my freshman year. 😂
ideally, i’d be housed in a university system, rather than going private. but when i looked around their campus nothing was “green” or “sustainable” including their “green” and “sustainable” projects and i voiced this fact. this caused its own conflicts especially with the folks at leed!
why don’t you develop oaks + oars as a non-profit?
have you ever managed a team of volunteers? that’s not something i am interested in doing again.
besides, our initial goal was to raise $150,000,000,000. can you imagine us trying to raise that amount through donations and grants
why are you launching the oars?
after years of watching how venture funding flows, i began to see the system clearly. money starts at the federal level, trickles to the states, and then gets funneled into local communities through carefully managed venture funds. those funds often partner with local vc firms who, in turn, keep innovation close, guarded, and controlled by a few gatekeepers. the message was clear: if you want to build, you must play their game.
i decided i wouldn’t.
instead of accepting a system designed to keep capital in closed circles, i chose to build my own. that’s how the oars was born. a financial technology venture capital firm designed to chart an entirely new course.
at the oars, we are not recreating the same old structures with shinier branding. we are setting a new standard for how capital is managed and deployed, upholding swiss bank–level fiduciary principles so that trust, security, and transparency are embedded from day one. and from that foundation, we’re offering a suite of advanced financial services powered by cutting-edge technology to serve individuals, businesses, and institutions worldwide.
the reason is simple: today’s venture capital system rewards consensus over conviction. funds crowd into the same deals, chasing hype cycles, leaving truly transformative ideas underfunded and overlooked. but consensus never changes the world only conviction does. that’s why at the oars, we don’t chase founders. we launch them.
our investment approach is rooted in tackling the urgent challenges of our time: the climate crisis, socioeconomic inequality, and the sustainable transformation of global infrastructure. by aligning capital with sectors like renewable energy, clean transportation, sustainable agriculture, and next-generation computing, we are not just fueling financial returns we are creating the conditions for humanity to thrive.
raising a $150 billion venture fund is no small ambition, but it matches the scale of the problems we face. the first years will focus on building the fund and forging global partnerships, and from there, we will strategically deploy capital across both disruptive startups and established companies positioned to accelerate impact. our geographic focus stretches across coastal north and south america, europe, the uk, the middle east, india, southeast asia, and africa—regions where innovation can create outsized global change.
i am launching the oars because i believe finance should not be about control, but about possibility. it should not be about who gets to say yes or no, but about whether we can build systems that meet the scale of the crises we face. my background as the inventor of artificial intelligence and my work as an entrepreneur taught me one thing: architecture matters. if you want a different outcome, you must design a different system.
that’s what the oars is. a new vessel for innovation. a refusal to accept the limitations of the old ways. a commitment to conviction over consensus.
because the future doesn’t need permission from the past. it needs oars in the water, moving us forward.
why did you pivot from a think tank to a regenerative research and strategy studio?
for a long time, the traditional think tank path seemed like the obvious route. think tanks sit at the center of policy conversations, producing groundbreaking research, advising governments, and shaping the way institutions respond to global challenges. and for a time, i thought that was the right arena for my ideas and energy.
but the deeper i went, the more i realized the limits of that system. government-affiliated think tanks often produce brilliant work, but too often it exists to serve the priorities of the state rather than the people. even the most well-intentioned research gets caught in a web of bureaucracy, political gamesmanship, and entrenched interests. the reality is that good ideas don’t always translate into effective policy. and when they do, the process is so slow and so riddled with inequity and corruption at various stages that by the time change comes, the world has already moved on.
i didn’t want to keep pouring intellectual capital into a system where accountability mechanisms aren’t equitable, where innovation is diluted by bureaucracy, and where impact is delayed by design. i didn’t want my work to serve as another cog in a machine that ultimately keeps power centralized and progress conditional.
so i pivoted.
instead of anchoring my work in a government-centric think tank, i chose to build something regenerative. a research and strategy studio housed firmly in the private market. here, we can protect and grow intellectual capital without surrendering it to institutions that don’t always act in the best interest of the people. here, we can take the same rigor, the same depth of inquiry, and the same bold ideas, but apply them in ways that move faster, reach wider, and remain true to our values.
this pivot isn’t about abandoning research; it’s about freeing it. it’s about creating a space where strategy isn’t dictated by the slow churn of government approval, but instead by what is needed, what is possible, and what will create real change. in a regenerative studio, our focus is on projects that restore, reimagine, and renew not just for institutions, but for communities, companies, and people.
i believe the private sector gives us the freedom to do more than consult. it gives us the power to build. it gives us the chance to steward innovation responsibly, without having to filter every step through a political process designed to hold change back.
that’s why i made the pivot: because i’d rather spend my energy crafting solutions that can be put into practice today than drafting policies that may not see the light of day. because our intellectual capital is too precious to be trapped in a broken system. and because the future deserves bold, regenerative thinking that is not beholden to politics, but to possibility.