Special thanks to Naoki Akazawa.
Reason serves as a universal tool for the fabrication of all other tools, rigidly purpose-directed and as calamitous as the precisely calculated operations of material production, the results of which for human beings escape all calculation.
- Max Horkheimer & Theodor Adorno
In a previous report [1] where we analyzed grant programs, we categorized grant programs into three types (top-down type, bottom-up type, and QF type) and hypothesized that the structure and the amount of grants are interdependent. In that report, we found that in the bottom-up and QF type structures, a large number of projects received equally small amounts of funding, while in the top-down type, there was a large variability in amount of grants for grantees. From the perspective of fairness, the bottom-up and QF types might be preferred while they also have the disadvantage of providing relatively smaller amounts of funding.
Our hypothesis suggests that the existence of the top-down type is essential to complement the areas that cannot be covered by the bottom-up and QF types. Although the top-down type is often perceived as undemocratic due to its centralized decision-making based on specific values by certain groups, often lacking transparency, we argue that such grant programs, which seem contradictory to democratic values, play an important role in reflecting a more diverse range of values. I think the idea of plurality doesn’t only mean reflecting democratic values but also includes the existence of multiple "biased values." We hope that the inclusion of various biased values will ultimately broaden the possibilities of funding more public goods. 
Today, with the advancement of technology centered on blockchain, innovations are emerging in the public goods space, and the term "Plurality," meaning "technology for collaboration beyond differences," is also gaining traction. However, amid this progress in science and technology, isn't it necessary to reflect on the era that critically examined Enlightenment thought, which triggered this development? In 19th-century Europe, the Enlightenment, which pushed forward rationalization and contributed to scientific advancement and the development of social systems, was paradoxically criticized for leading to the domination and oppression of human beings. This paradox is something that we in the modern era should also consider.
This critique is summarized in Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment. In this report, by citing Dialectic of Enlightenment, we will argue for the validity of our hypothesis that top-down types are necessary for a fairer distribution of funds.
What is “Dialectic of Enlightenment” ?
Let us first briefly outline Dialectic of Enlightenment. Published in 1944 by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, this philosophical work critically analyzes the Enlightenment and its limitations. The work seeks to expose the contradictions inherent in Enlightenment ideals and the resulting social and cultural issues.
Written against the backdrop of World War II and the rise of Nazi Germany, it contains deep criticism of the social and political situation in Europe at the time. Horkheimer and Adorno argue that despite the Enlightenment bringing rationality and scientific progress to the West, it also carries the risk of being used for totalitarian and oppressive systems. They criticized that while Enlightenment rationality was supposed to liberate people, the extreme pursuit of rationality turned it into a tool of domination and oppression. At the heart of their criticism lies the reality that, alongside the advancement of science and technology, totalitarian political regimes arose, eroding human freedom. In particular, the existence of Nazi concentration camps like Auschwitz highlights the contradiction between the ideals of the Enlightenment and the actual course of history, which they viewed as the "self-destruction" of the Enlightenment.
Originally, Enlightenment thought aimed to allow humans to control their own destiny through reason and science, liberating them from the domination of nature and society. However, Horkheimer and Adorno argued that as the Enlightenment progressed, its original goal became distorted, and humans found themselves trapped in new forms of domination. They attributed this distortion to the transformation of reason into "critical reason" and "instrumental reason." Originally, critical reason questioned authority and existing systems, pursuing freedom and justice, but as the Enlightenment advanced, reason transformed into instrumental reason, used solely as a means to achieve ends, and began functioning as a tool of domination. Instrumental reason reduces humans and nature to mere objects, justifying control and manipulation. In other words, the pursuit of rationality by the Enlightenment inadvertently intensified the tendency to exclude the irrational, resulting in the Enlightenment itself transforming into a tool that justified domination and violence.
Dialectic of Enlightenment critically analyzes the process of rationalization in modern society, re-examining modern reason and Enlightenment thought and emphasizing its limits and dangers. Horkheimer and Adorno argued that as modern capitalist society developed into an extremely rational and controlling system, individual freedom and spontaneity were lost, giving rise to new forms of non-freedom. They called this situation the "paradox of the Enlightenment," suggesting that the freedom and liberation sought by the Enlightenment ultimately led to new forms of oppression.
Overview of 21st Century Ideologies
How, then, can we view modern ideologies from the perspective of Dialectic of Enlightenment? First, let's reflect on contemporary ideologies. Economist Glen Wyle discusses the changes in political ideologies in the 21st century and the prospects for the future. He argues that political debates will undergo significant changes, with technological advancements playing a major role in these transformations [2]. He asserts that traditional ideologies are no longer sufficient to address the societal challenges of the future, and thus, a new political framework is needed. Notably, three ideologies are expected to play important roles in future society: "Corporate Libertarianism," "Synthetic Technocracy," and "Digital Democracy." 
Corporate Libertarianism emphasizes maximizing individual freedom and independence by minimizing interference from the state or collectives, using blockchain and cryptographic technologies. This ideology envisions corporations and entrepreneurs playing central roles in society, possessing influence that surpasses traditional political power. Corporate libertarians seek to reduce the role of the state and regulations, aspiring for a society where individuals are free to act in the marketplace and pursue self-interest.
Synthetic Technocracy is a future-oriented ideology centered on the evolution of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), aiming to solve social issues and eliminate economic scarcity through technological means. It is believed that as AGI evolves, human labor will become unnecessary, and many of society's challenges will be efficiently resolved. Particularly, issues like resource distribution and economic equality are expected to be overcome through AGI's optimization and technological management.
Digital Democracy advocates for a more decentralized and participatory form of democracy by utilizing digital technologies. This ideology aims to reduce centralized power structures and create a society where individual communities can govern themselves autonomously through digital technologies. Digital democracy seeks to create a more transparent and collaborative society by allowing more people to participate in political decision-making through cooperation with existing political institutions.
Public Goods Funding in the Context of Dialectic of Enlightenment
In contrast to these three ideologies, Dialectic of Enlightenment would likely take a critical stance toward both Corporate Libertarianism and Synthetic Technocracy, which promote rationalization. From the perspective of public goods funding, which is one of our research themes, we can say that Corporate Libertarianism, which favors VC Funding (though technically not public goods funding), and Synthetic Technocracy, which aligns with Effective Altruism (EA), would be subject to critique. On the other hand, a more cooperative and democratic approach, such as Quadratic Funding (QF), favored by digital democrats, would likely be endorsed.
From the perspective of Dialectic of Enlightenment, public goods funding can be positioned as a key to overcoming the contradictions inherent in Enlightenment thought and its impact, reclaiming freedom and justice in society. Horkheimer and Adorno argued that as Enlightenment advanced, society became increasingly rationalized, while that very rationalization gave rise to the oppression of humanity and new forms of domination. In this context, public goods funding is critical as a mechanism to escape from societal homogenization and rigid control systems.
Public goods funding is a mechanism for supplying resources to activities and projects that benefit the public, allowing individuals and communities to voluntarily pursue the public good. This signifies a re-emphasis on individual freedom and autonomy, which are often lost in the process of rationalization, and promotes liberation from dominant systems. By supporting projects and activities that create social value through public goods funding, diversity and creativity are respected, and a society that allows for deviation from standardized thinking and behavior is formed. Moreover, public goods funding can serve as a practical means to realize the social progress and freedom originally sought by Enlightenment thinkers. As Horkheimer and Adorno pointed out, overcoming the new forms of oppression and inequality brought about by the progress of the Enlightenment requires a fundamental review of societal structures and a more inclusive and equitable distribution of resources. To fund public goods is essential for complementing the limitations of the capitalist market economy and building a society where everyone can equally enjoy its benefits.
In other words, from the perspective of Dialectic of Enlightenment, public goods funding plays an extremely important role in liberating society from the oppression caused by rationalization, promoting diversity and creativity, and building a sustainable society. It is expected to play a crucial role as a means to overcome the contradictions brought about by the Enlightenment and aim for a truly free and just society.
Instrumentalized Plurality – Toward a More Diverse Range of Values
Thus, public goods funding can be seen as essential for breaking away from rational, standardized funding methods like VC Funding and EA. As mentioned earlier, QF is one example of public goods funding. QF is a democratic mechanism to fund public goods, and the QF model operates under the principle that "the amount of funds a project receives is proportional to the square of the sum of the square roots of individual donations received." However, here we encounter a contradiction. While public goods funding is supposed to serve as a means of escaping rationality and uniformity, by programming it through mechanisms like QF, we may inadvertently be solidifying values such as fairness and democracy into fixed forms. Could it be that by attempting to implement mechanisms to escape from rational markets and value systems through code, we are creating yet another rational system? Can this truly be called a fundamental solution? Of course, we have already discussed the importance of programmatic implementation (via smart contracts) as a means of collaborating with people worldwide, and this does not mean a rejection of autonomous protocols or coding itself [3]. However, we must be aware of the fact that the very act of attempting to solve problems beyond rationality through coding contains inherent contradictions and may not be a fundamental solution. The problem that Plurality, including QF, seeks to solve exists outside of rationality, yet we must recognize that Plurality itself contains a certain degree of rationality. To quote from Dialectic of Enlightenment, we need to overcome the "instrumentalized Plurality."
Here, we return to the hypothesis stated at the beginning: "In order to fund more public goods, top-down types are necessary to complement the areas that cannot be covered by bottom-up types and QF types." Plurality, which originally aimed to reflect diverse values, has become "instrumentalized" by rationalizing the pursuit of democratization, leading to the unification of values. To escape from this rationalized system, paradoxically, we may need multiple unified sets of values. In other words, it might be possible to achieve a funding distribution system that escapes rationalization by having entities with biased values act as the fund distributors. Just as markets are supplemented by governments and QF, the government and QF should be complemented by multiple subjective entities that distribute funds. This suggests that a system of funding distribution based on various (sometimes irrational and inefficient) values is necessary. There is no doubt that in today's world, where opinions emphasizing QF and impact evaluation are prevalent, we need to look beyond mere efficiency. Through our quantitative analysis of grants programs, we seek to highlight the importance of funders capable of providing resources to public goods that currently remain underfunded.