The Freemium World Order

In the world of software, we are all familiar with the "Freemium" business model. You get a tool for free, get (hopefully) hooked on the features, and then hit a paywall to keep using the "Pro" version. It is a standard business strategy for Software as a Service companies. But what happens when you apply that same logic to international diplomacy and world peace?

The newly proposed "Board of Peace" (BoP) could be exactly that. By structuring a geopolitical body like a subscription service, we are witnessing a shift away from democratic governance. The structure of the Board of Peace is almost indistinguishable from a corporate customer acquisition funnel: Invitations have been sent to roughly 60 countries to join the Board for an initial three-year term. Like a software trial, the barrier to entry is lowered initially to get "users" (here: nations) onto the platform. In this case it's even for free. Than, the hook comes after the trial. To convert a temporary seat into a permanent one, nations (sorry, "users") must pay a one-time fee of $1 billion. Only than you can keep playing the "Pro" version with all it's features. To be fair, it's not yet a subscription but many young SaaS companies start with a "lifetime" offer in the beginning. And then there is the CEO and gatekeeper, Donald Trump, who controls invitations, renewals, and has final approval authority over all board decisions. Effectively centralizing all governance like a company.

In a SaaS model, you pay for premium features and get better support, more data, or advanced tools. In this geopolitical model, the "premium features" are influence and access. The Board of Peace is tasked with overseeing the reconstruction of Gaza and potentially managing other conflict zones. For a wealthy nation, the $1 billion fee isn't a donation but an investment. A permanent seat likely grants a voice in deciding which companies get the lucrative contracts to rebuild cities, install infrastructure, and manage resources.

The most troubling aspect of this model is the segmentation of the user base. In a democracy (or the UN General Assembly), every vote is theoretically equal, regardless of a nation's GDP. In a Freemium model, priority support goes to the "Pro" or "Enterprise" clients, i.e., the ones that pay. By putting a $1 billion price tag on permanent membership, the Board filters out countries that are often those most affected by conflict. If only rich nations (the "Pro" users) make the rules, they will design peace treaties and reconstruction deals that benefit their own economies. All the other users become the passive recipients of policy rather than active participants. This moves us away from diplomatic legitimacy (do you represent the people?) toward financial legitimacy (can you afford the seat?). The Board treats peace not as a universal public good, but as a luxury commodity available to those with the liquidity to afford it. The "users" with the deepest pockets get to decide what that peace looks like and who gets to profit from it.