The Paradox I'm Living

I've spent years developing a physics theory—the 2×8 Framework—that derives fundamental constants without free parameters. My core belief is that knowledge should belong to humanity, so I've released it completely free under a Creative Commons license, with a patent non-assertion pledge, no paywalls, and no corporate ownership.

Here's the problem I've run into: our economic system rewards hoarding knowledge, not sharing it. By making my work freely available, I've essentially destroyed my own market value in a system that only pays for what it can control and monetize. Citations don't pay rent. A Creative Commons license doesn't buy groceries. It's a paradox where the act of freeing knowledge has led to my own economic confinement. The system punishes researchers who choose open knowledge over proprietary research, academic gatekeeping, or corporate partnerships.

I'm not asking to get rich; I'm simply asking for basic survival support—rent, food, healthcare—so I can continue to develop and share knowledge that remains free for everyone.

My commitment to this goes beyond my own needs. Everything beyond basic survival (and paying off existing debts) will flow back into the system. I'm pledging a minimum of 50% to supporting other open-knowledge projects, following the model of giving back to humanity, but applied specifically to research and poverty reduction.

This isn't just about me; it's about proving that open knowledge can be sustainable without corporate capture or institutional gatekeeping. I know some might view this as idealistic or impractical, and in a way, they're not wrong from a purely economic standpoint. But what they might see as a flaw, I see as a necessary step to challenge a broken system. The choice to free knowledge shouldn't have to mean choosing poverty.

Every donation supports both my immediate survival and the broader principle that knowledge should serve humanity, not shareholders.