Extinction Bounties

Policy-based deterrence for the 21st century.

Policy-research disclaimer

Extinction Bounties publishes theoretical economic and legal mechanisms intended to stimulate scholarly and public debate on catastrophic-risk governance. The site offers policy analysis and advocacy only in the sense of outlining possible legislative or contractual frameworks.

No legal or financial advice

Nothing here should be treated as a substitute for qualified legal counsel, financial due diligence, or regulatory guidance. Readers remain responsible for ensuring their actions comply with the laws and professional standards of their own jurisdictions.

Exploratory and personal views

All scenarios, numerical examples and opinions are research hypotheses presented by the author in a personal capacity. They do not represent the views of the author's employer, funding bodies, or any governmental authority.

Implementation caveats

Any real-world adoption of these ideas would require democratic deliberation, statutory authority, and robust safeguards against misuse. References to enforcement, penalties, or "bounties" are illustrative models, not instructions or invitations to engage in private policing or unlawful conduct. Nothing here is an accusation against, or a call to act against, any person or organisation; see non-targeting.

No warranty and limited liability

Content is provided "as is" without warranty of completeness or accuracy; the author disclaims liability for losses arising from reliance on this material.

By continuing beyond this notice you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and accepted these conditions.

Governance

  • 10. Making It Global

    A mechanism that stops at a border relocates the risk instead of reducing it. What adoption would actually have to look like, and what it would still fail to reach.

    alpha revised 2026-10-20

  • 11. Compare and Contrast

    How this proposal stacks up against the other things people suggest, including on the axes where it loses badly.

    alpha revised 2026-09-13

  • Is the Quiet World Stable?

    This site's central line is that shifting the Nash equilibrium is easier than solving alignment. It describes the equilibrium it wants to leave in detail and the one it would arrive at almost not at all. Four players, checked one at a time for a profitable unilateral deviation.

    alpha revised 2026-10-20

  • Overlapping Jurisdictions Are a Feature

    What this proposal asks for is not a world government. It is one more overlapping legal order in a life that already contains several, and the rigorous case for that is about credible commitment, not about liberty.

    alpha revised 2026-10-20

  • Pacing Is a Setting on a Dial

    Anthropic's CEO now says frontier AI has to be slowed, and he has a three-step plan to do it. I agree with where he's going and disagree with the route in four places: what extra time is worth, who pays the evaluators, whether we should wait and see, and how much the flag on the lab matters.

    alpha revised 2026-10-20

  • Team Size Is a Governance Variable

    Extinction bounties, the False Claims Act, SEC whistleblower awards and antitrust leniency all rest on the same unstated premise: that the wrongdoing requires enough people that one of them can be paid to defect. That premise has a number attached, the number is falling, and no one is tracking it.

    alpha revised 2026-10-20

  • The Chilling Effect Is the Product

    Everywhere else on this site the chilling effect is scored as a cost. It is worth one page arguing the opposite: it is the only output that matters, and the steady state it aims at is a world where nothing happens.

    alpha revised 2026-09-13