The Shipwreck and the Lighthouse

Imagine a storm rolling in over the Atlantic. A ship, caught in the chaos, sends distress signals as waves batter its hull. The crew scrambles, but there is no lighthouse on the horizon, no guiding light to navigate towards safety.

The shipwreck is the global economy. It has been steered for decades by the singular logic of Return on Investment (ROI), a system designed to extract as much financial value as possible while disregarding long-term stability. The missing lighthouse is a financial system built for resilience, one that understands value as more than just quarterly returns.

The more I look around, the more I see these conversations emerging. What if investment was not about extracting wealth, but about stewarding it? What if capital was measured not just in financial yield, but in environmental regeneration, social well-being, and shared prosperity?

Although it still feels like a theory, I have been digging into this space, speaking with mates, and finding that these shifts are already happening. New models of polycentric governance and systemic investing are reshaping finance. This post builds on previous questions I have explored, inspired by the work of Dark Matter Labs and other practitioners, (aided by AI to find some case studies) leading the charge in redesigning financial systems.

I am not an economist or a finance expert. But I have worked in systems change long enough to keep coming back to the same frustration: why aren’t we funding solutions for problems we know are coming?

To understand why, I had to look back into why modern finance is the way it is.

For much of history, wealth was not something to be maximised. It was something to be circulated. Feudal lords funded cathedrals. Indigenous societies practised communal reciprocity. Early banks pooled resources to finance long-term trade routes, absorbing risk together rather than extracting profits immediately.

But in the 20th century, things shifted. The rise the shareholder, Milton Friedman’s infamous doctrine (that corporations exist only to maximise returns), and the financialisation of everything turned capital into a zero-sum game.

What we lost in this transformation was the ability to invest for the long term. Instead, finance became extractive, measured only in short-term ROI, leaving a trail of environmental collapse, social instability, and economic precarity.

Now, the cracks are impossible to ignore.

• Climate disasters will cost billions, yet preventative investments remain underfunded.

• Housing markets collapse, while hedge funds extract profits from scarcity.

• Healthcare systems buckle, despite research proving that investing in well-being yields greater long-term savings.

It is time to ask: What if finance looked different?

A new generation of investors, philanthropists and public institutions is challenging the ROI-centric mindset, replacing it with Value on Investment (VOI) – a way of measuring capital that accounts for social, environmental and systemic returns.

1. Systemic Investing: Funding Entire Ecosystems, Not Just Assets

Rather than focusing on isolated projects, systemic investing funds interconnected solutions.

• In climate resilience, it means not just funding solar energy startups, but also investing in policy advocacy, grid infrastructure and workforce training to ensure an entire sector transforms.

• In public health, it means backing food security programmes, clean air initiatives and preventative medicine, not just hospitals.

A great example is Regen Melbourne, a coalition of 180+ organisations that fund projects for a regenerative city, pooling resources for green infrastructure, cooperative enterprises and social equity initiatives. Instead of a single entity making investment decisions, stakeholders share governance, ensuring long-term alignment.

2. Catalytic and Patient Capital: Investing for Systemic Impact

Traditional finance is impatient. If a project does not show returns in three to five years, it is deemed unworthy. But many of the most transformative investments, climate infrastructure, social housing, ecosystem regeneration, take decades to realise.

What is Catalytic Capital? (The best definition I could find below…)

Imagine you are planting a native forest. If you only fund trees that will grow quickly and provide immediate economic returns, you end up with a monoculture: efficient, but fragile. Catalytic capital is like funding the slower-growing species, the deep-rooted trees that create resilience over time.

It provides early, risk-tolerant funding to unlock investment where the market would otherwise fail.

To shift towards long-term, systemic investment, we need:

✅ Blended Finance – Combining public, private, and philanthropic funding to reduce early-stage risk and attract mainstream capital.

✅ Flexible Investment Models – Moving beyond rigid funding cycles to adaptive models like revenue-based financing or evergreen funds.

✅ Community-Led Investment Vehicles – Ensuring capital is distributed through local networks, not just top-down institutions.

✅ Policy and Tax Incentives – Governments encouraging patient capital through tax benefits and de-risking mechanisms.

Where It’s Working:

• Renewable energy – Public and impact-driven investors took early risks, making it a trillion-dollar industry.

• Affordable housing cooperatives – Funded through community wealth-building to prevent gentrification.

• Regenerative agriculture – Investors supporting soil health and climate resilience over decades.

Even when capital shifts towards impact-driven models, there is one persistent challenge: mission drift.

Profit incentives have a way of creeping back in. They start as a small compromise; a shift in priorities, a more “commercially viable” direction. Over time, purpose becomes secondary, impact is diluted, and eventually, the structure that once existed to solve a problem is indistinguishable from the system it was meant to transform.

And more broadly:

• How do you maintain coherence without central control?

• What mechanisms ensure trust between semi-autonomous nodes?

1. Governance That Hardwires Impact

Successful mission-driven investments through:

• Charters & Investment Policies: Legal commitments to impact-driven decision-making.

• Impact Committees: Boards that oversee financial and social/environmental goals.

• Mission-Locked Structures: Cooperatives, community land trusts, and steward-ownership models that prevent mission drift even if leadership changes.

The biggest challenge? Convincing fiduciary stakeholders that social returns mattered as much as financial ones.* (Maybe something I would like to explore?)

2. Polycentric Governance: Decentralizing Investment Power

Most investments are decided by a small set of institutional gatekeepers.

But polycentric models distribute power, bringing community voices, cooperatives, and public actors into decision-making.

• Participatory grantmaking allows those affected by funding decisions to help shape investments.

• Worker-owned funds ensure employees control capital, rather than external shareholders.

• Coalition-based governance (like Regen Melbourne) aligns businesses, government, and community stakeholders in shared investment strategies.

These models prevent capital from being monopolised, ensuring investments reflect actual needs, not just investor incentives. But how do you maintain coherence when decision-making is distributed? I am unsure where the answer is here, but I believe in created shared principles rather than looking into rigid top-down control.

3. Collaborative Capital Models: Weakening Competition, Strengthening Collective Action

One of the biggest inefficiencies in traditional investing is redundant competition. Where multiple entities fight for capital rather than aligning their resources toward shared systemic goals.

Collaborative capital models shift the logic from competition to coordination by encouraging investment structures that pool funding, share risk, and align incentives.

How it Works in Practice:

• Pooled Investment Vehicles: Rather than competing for funding, multiple stakeholders contribute to a shared capital pool. For example, Fair By Design aligns philanthropy, VC, and advocacy funding to tackle the poverty premium, ensuring investments work in tandem rather than in silos.

• Pre-Competitive Collaboration: In some industries, companies and investors collaborate before competing, jointly funding shared infrastructure or research. This approach is common in climate finance, where rival energy firms co-invest in foundational technology (like battery storage) that benefits the entire sector.

• Cross-Sector Investment Platforms: Instead of fragmented funding, some governments and NGOs set up platforms where philanthropy, public funding, and private investment can co-invest with aligned goals.

By shifting governance toward collaboration instead of fragmentation, these models unlock systemic impact faster; turning financial ecosystems from arenas of competition into cooperative networks of change.

4. Knowledge as Infrastructure: Aligning Without Central Control

The greatest challenge of decentralised governance is coherence. Without a central authority dictating rules, how do independent actors stay aligned? How do you build trust between semi-autonomous nodes?

Maybe an answer here could be knowledge as shared infrastructure. Rather than enforcing top-down control, strong governance frameworks create mechanisms for transparency, learning, and adaptation. (Although I think there are many more ways!)

Key Mechanisms for Trust and Coherence:

• Open Data & Transparency Platforms: When decision-making processes, investment flows, and impact data are openly shared, it builds trust and reduces information asymmetries.

• Community-Led Evaluation Models: Instead of measuring success purely through financial returns, some funds enable communities to co-create impact metrics. The Buen Vivir Fund, a Latin American investment cooperative, uses participatory impact assessments where investors and local communities evaluate success together.

• Distributed Learning Networks: The most effective systemic investments shouldn’t just deploy capital… they should also deploy knowledge.

• Shared Principles Over Centralised Rules: Instead of rigid control, successful polycentric models operate on agreed-upon principles. The Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL), for example, provides a guiding framework for cities and organisations to align with planetary and social boundarie. While allowing for localised adaptation.

By treating knowledge-sharing as an essential governance function, these models enable semi-autonomous nodes to coordinate, innovate, and align without losing coherence.

I remember sitting in a funding meeting, watching as millions were allocated with just a quickly designed spreadsheet.

“We need to see a return in 18 months,” someone said, closing the discussion.

That was it. No conversation about the communities involved, the systemic barriers, or what long-term success might actually look like.

I have not yet seen the perfect alternative. But I have felt the frustration of working within a financial system that demands short-term certainty from problems that require long-term trust. I have heard funders admit that impact reporting feels like justifying decisions already made, rather than capturing real change. I have seen local councils and charities struggle to fit into rigid funding cycles that do not match the pace of the work.

The challenge is not just redesigning financial models… it seems to me that is about redesigning our relationship with risk, power, and time.

Finance has been built for control. But its future depends on connection and collaboration.

We are at a turning point. The crises of climate instability, wealth inequality and governance failure demand more than incremental tweaks. They require us to completely rewire how capital flows through our world.

To accelerate this transition:

✅ Policymakers must update fiduciary duty laws to allow for VOI investing.

✅ Investors must embrace long-term, catalytic and blended capital strategies.

✅ Governance structures must move towards polycentric, participatory decision-making.

✅ Communities must reclaim wealth through models that distribute ownership rather than consolidate it.

If finance is the shipwreck, governance is the lighthouse. It is time to change course, not just for the sake of economic resilience, but for the shared future of communities, ecosystems and generations to come.

• Dark Matter Labs: Four Axes of Capital Allocation Beyond Direct ROI

• TIIP - The Investment Integration Project: Rethinking Capital Allocation for Systemic Change

• Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL): A Model for Social and Planetary Boundaries

• MacArthur Foundation: Catalytic Capital Consortium – Investing with a Transformational Lens

• MIT Sloan Review: Systemic Investing & Long-Term Wealth Stewardship

• Ford Foundation: Mission-Related Investments & Blended Finance

• OECD: Blended Finance for Impact Investing

• UNEP & PRI: Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century

Case Studies on Alternative Capital Strategies

• Fair By Design: Venture Fund & Advocacy to Reduce the Poverty Premium

• Regen Melbourne: A City-Wide Regenerative Investment Alliance

• ReFED: Data-Driven Capital Allocation for Food Waste Solutions

• Prime Coalition: Catalytic Capital for Climate Innovation

• University Pension Plan (UPP) Canada: Investing in Systemic Resilience

• Wespath Institutional Investments: Systemic Stewardship in Faith-Based Investing

• UN Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance: Global Investor Coalition

Governance & Policy Frameworks for Alternative Capital

• The Impact Management Project: Standardising Impact Metrics

• EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR): Policy for Impact Investment Transparency

• OECD: Policy Guidelines on ESG & Impact Investing

• UNEP: Aligning Asset Management with Systemic Sustainability

The Shipwreck and the Lighthouse

Imagine a storm rolling in over the Atlantic. A ship, caught in the chaos, sends distress signals as waves batter its hull. The crew scrambles, but there is no lighthouse on the horizon, no guiding light to navigate towards safety.

The shipwreck is the global economy. It has been steered for decades by the singular logic of Return on Investment (ROI), a system designed to extract as much financial value as possible while disregarding long-term stability. The missing lighthouse is a financial system built for resilience, one that understands value as more than just quarterly returns.

The more I look around, the more I see these conversations emerging. What if investment was not about extracting wealth, but about stewarding it? What if capital was measured not just in financial yield, but in environmental regeneration, social well-being, and shared prosperity?

Although it still feels like a theory, I have been digging into this space, speaking with mates, and finding that these shifts are already happening. New models of polycentric governance and systemic investing are reshaping finance. This post builds on previous questions I have explored, inspired by the work of Dark Matter Labs and other practitioners, (aided by AI to find some case studies) leading the charge in redesigning financial systems.

I am not an economist or a finance expert. But I have worked in systems change long enough to keep coming back to the same frustration: why aren’t we funding solutions for problems we know are coming?

To understand why, I had to look back into why modern finance is the way it is.

For much of history, wealth was not something to be maximised. It was something to be circulated. Feudal lords funded cathedrals. Indigenous societies practised communal reciprocity. Early banks pooled resources to finance long-term trade routes, absorbing risk together rather than extracting profits immediately.

But in the 20th century, things shifted. The rise the shareholder, Milton Friedman’s infamous doctrine (that corporations exist only to maximise returns), and the financialisation of everything turned capital into a zero-sum game.

What we lost in this transformation was the ability to invest for the long term. Instead, finance became extractive, measured only in short-term ROI, leaving a trail of environmental collapse, social instability, and economic precarity.

Now, the cracks are impossible to ignore.

• Climate disasters will cost billions, yet preventative investments remain underfunded.

• Housing markets collapse, while hedge funds extract profits from scarcity.

• Healthcare systems buckle, despite research proving that investing in well-being yields greater long-term savings.

It is time to ask: What if finance looked different?

A new generation of investors, philanthropists and public institutions is challenging the ROI-centric mindset, replacing it with Value on Investment (VOI) – a way of measuring capital that accounts for social, environmental and systemic returns.

1. Systemic Investing: Funding Entire Ecosystems, Not Just Assets

Rather than focusing on isolated projects, systemic investing funds interconnected solutions.

• In climate resilience, it means not just funding solar energy startups, but also investing in policy advocacy, grid infrastructure and workforce training to ensure an entire sector transforms.

• In public health, it means backing food security programmes, clean air initiatives and preventative medicine, not just hospitals.

A great example is Regen Melbourne, a coalition of 180+ organisations that fund projects for a regenerative city, pooling resources for green infrastructure, cooperative enterprises and social equity initiatives. Instead of a single entity making investment decisions, stakeholders share governance, ensuring long-term alignment.

2. Catalytic and Patient Capital: Investing for Systemic Impact

Traditional finance is impatient. If a project does not show returns in three to five years, it is deemed unworthy. But many of the most transformative investments, climate infrastructure, social housing, ecosystem regeneration, take decades to realise.

What is Catalytic Capital? (The best definition I could find below…)

Imagine you are planting a native forest. If you only fund trees that will grow quickly and provide immediate economic returns, you end up with a monoculture: efficient, but fragile. Catalytic capital is like funding the slower-growing species, the deep-rooted trees that create resilience over time.

It provides early, risk-tolerant funding to unlock investment where the market would otherwise fail.

To shift towards long-term, systemic investment, we need:

✅ Blended Finance – Combining public, private, and philanthropic funding to reduce early-stage risk and attract mainstream capital.

✅ Flexible Investment Models – Moving beyond rigid funding cycles to adaptive models like revenue-based financing or evergreen funds.

✅ Community-Led Investment Vehicles – Ensuring capital is distributed through local networks, not just top-down institutions.

✅ Policy and Tax Incentives – Governments encouraging patient capital through tax benefits and de-risking mechanisms.

Where It’s Working:

• Renewable energy – Public and impact-driven investors took early risks, making it a trillion-dollar industry.

• Affordable housing cooperatives – Funded through community wealth-building to prevent gentrification.

• Regenerative agriculture – Investors supporting soil health and climate resilience over decades.

Even when capital shifts towards impact-driven models, there is one persistent challenge: mission drift.

Profit incentives have a way of creeping back in. They start as a small compromise; a shift in priorities, a more “commercially viable” direction. Over time, purpose becomes secondary, impact is diluted, and eventually, the structure that once existed to solve a problem is indistinguishable from the system it was meant to transform.

And more broadly:

• How do you maintain coherence without central control?

• What mechanisms ensure trust between semi-autonomous nodes?

1. Governance That Hardwires Impact

Successful mission-driven investments through:

• Charters & Investment Policies: Legal commitments to impact-driven decision-making.

• Impact Committees: Boards that oversee financial and social/environmental goals.

• Mission-Locked Structures: Cooperatives, community land trusts, and steward-ownership models that prevent mission drift even if leadership changes.

The biggest challenge? Convincing fiduciary stakeholders that social returns mattered as much as financial ones.* (Maybe something I would like to explore?)

2. Polycentric Governance: Decentralizing Investment Power

Most investments are decided by a small set of institutional gatekeepers.

But polycentric models distribute power, bringing community voices, cooperatives, and public actors into decision-making.

• Participatory grantmaking allows those affected by funding decisions to help shape investments.

• Worker-owned funds ensure employees control capital, rather than external shareholders.

• Coalition-based governance (like Regen Melbourne) aligns businesses, government, and community stakeholders in shared investment strategies.

These models prevent capital from being monopolised, ensuring investments reflect actual needs, not just investor incentives. But how do you maintain coherence when decision-making is distributed? I am unsure where the answer is here, but I believe in created shared principles rather than looking into rigid top-down control.

3. Collaborative Capital Models: Weakening Competition, Strengthening Collective Action

One of the biggest inefficiencies in traditional investing is redundant competition. Where multiple entities fight for capital rather than aligning their resources toward shared systemic goals.

Collaborative capital models shift the logic from competition to coordination by encouraging investment structures that pool funding, share risk, and align incentives.

How it Works in Practice:

• Pooled Investment Vehicles: Rather than competing for funding, multiple stakeholders contribute to a shared capital pool. For example, Fair By Design aligns philanthropy, VC, and advocacy funding to tackle the poverty premium, ensuring investments work in tandem rather than in silos.

• Pre-Competitive Collaboration: In some industries, companies and investors collaborate before competing, jointly funding shared infrastructure or research. This approach is common in climate finance, where rival energy firms co-invest in foundational technology (like battery storage) that benefits the entire sector.

• Cross-Sector Investment Platforms: Instead of fragmented funding, some governments and NGOs set up platforms where philanthropy, public funding, and private investment can co-invest with aligned goals.

By shifting governance toward collaboration instead of fragmentation, these models unlock systemic impact faster; turning financial ecosystems from arenas of competition into cooperative networks of change.

4. Knowledge as Infrastructure: Aligning Without Central Control

The greatest challenge of decentralised governance is coherence. Without a central authority dictating rules, how do independent actors stay aligned? How do you build trust between semi-autonomous nodes?

Maybe an answer here could be knowledge as shared infrastructure. Rather than enforcing top-down control, strong governance frameworks create mechanisms for transparency, learning, and adaptation. (Although I think there are many more ways!)

Key Mechanisms for Trust and Coherence:

• Open Data & Transparency Platforms: When decision-making processes, investment flows, and impact data are openly shared, it builds trust and reduces information asymmetries.

• Community-Led Evaluation Models: Instead of measuring success purely through financial returns, some funds enable communities to co-create impact metrics. The Buen Vivir Fund, a Latin American investment cooperative, uses participatory impact assessments where investors and local communities evaluate success together.

• Distributed Learning Networks: The most effective systemic investments shouldn’t just deploy capital… they should also deploy knowledge.

• Shared Principles Over Centralised Rules: Instead of rigid control, successful polycentric models operate on agreed-upon principles. The Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL), for example, provides a guiding framework for cities and organisations to align with planetary and social boundarie. While allowing for localised adaptation.

By treating knowledge-sharing as an essential governance function, these models enable semi-autonomous nodes to coordinate, innovate, and align without losing coherence.

I remember sitting in a funding meeting, watching as millions were allocated with just a quickly designed spreadsheet.

“We need to see a return in 18 months,” someone said, closing the discussion.

That was it. No conversation about the communities involved, the systemic barriers, or what long-term success might actually look like.

I have not yet seen the perfect alternative. But I have felt the frustration of working within a financial system that demands short-term certainty from problems that require long-term trust. I have heard funders admit that impact reporting feels like justifying decisions already made, rather than capturing real change. I have seen local councils and charities struggle to fit into rigid funding cycles that do not match the pace of the work.

The challenge is not just redesigning financial models… it seems to me that is about redesigning our relationship with risk, power, and time.

Finance has been built for control. But its future depends on connection and collaboration.

We are at a turning point. The crises of climate instability, wealth inequality and governance failure demand more than incremental tweaks. They require us to completely rewire how capital flows through our world.

To accelerate this transition:

✅ Policymakers must update fiduciary duty laws to allow for VOI investing.

✅ Investors must embrace long-term, catalytic and blended capital strategies.

✅ Governance structures must move towards polycentric, participatory decision-making.

✅ Communities must reclaim wealth through models that distribute ownership rather than consolidate it.

If finance is the shipwreck, governance is the lighthouse. It is time to change course, not just for the sake of economic resilience, but for the shared future of communities, ecosystems and generations to come.

• Dark Matter Labs: Four Axes of Capital Allocation Beyond Direct ROI

• TIIP - The Investment Integration Project: Rethinking Capital Allocation for Systemic Change

• Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL): A Model for Social and Planetary Boundaries

• MacArthur Foundation: Catalytic Capital Consortium – Investing with a Transformational Lens

• MIT Sloan Review: Systemic Investing & Long-Term Wealth Stewardship

• Ford Foundation: Mission-Related Investments & Blended Finance

• OECD: Blended Finance for Impact Investing

• UNEP & PRI: Fiduciary Duty in the 21st Century

Case Studies on Alternative Capital Strategies

• Fair By Design: Venture Fund & Advocacy to Reduce the Poverty Premium

• Regen Melbourne: A City-Wide Regenerative Investment Alliance

• ReFED: Data-Driven Capital Allocation for Food Waste Solutions

• Prime Coalition: Catalytic Capital for Climate Innovation

• University Pension Plan (UPP) Canada: Investing in Systemic Resilience

• Wespath Institutional Investments: Systemic Stewardship in Faith-Based Investing

• UN Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance: Global Investor Coalition

Governance & Policy Frameworks for Alternative Capital

• The Impact Management Project: Standardising Impact Metrics

• EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR): Policy for Impact Investment Transparency

• OECD: Policy Guidelines on ESG & Impact Investing

• UNEP: Aligning Asset Management with Systemic Sustainability