.svg)
In 1999, a group of software industry leaders watched a twenty-five-year-old programmer named Linus Torvalds stand before a room of skeptical executives and declare that free software would eat commercial software alive. The room erupted in laughter. IBM alone spent more on software R&D than the entire Linux community combined. How could a ragtag bunch of volunteers, working in the open, sharing every line of code, possibly compete with the proprietary giants?
Two decades later, open source runs the internet, powers every smartphone, and has forced Microsoft—Microsoft!—to embrace openness or die. The lesson wasn't about software. It was about trust. In an age of infinite information and zero trust, transparency isn't just a nice-to-have moral position. It's a competitive weapon.
Which brings me to the most radical proposition in the think tank transformation manifesto: radical transparency. Not the token transparency of posting annual reports or listing major donors in mouseprint. Real transparency. Glass-house transparency. The kind that would make traditional think tank directors break out in hives.
Imagine every donation logged in real-time on a public ledger. Every research meeting livestreamed. Every dataset open for download. Every internal debate accessible to anyone with an internet connection. It sounds like organizational suicide. It's actually organizational salvation.
The closed-door model made sense in an era when information was scarce and trust was assumed. Those days are as dead as the three-martini lunch. Today, every institution faces a trust recession deeper than any financial crisis. The Catholic Church, the FBI, the New York Times, Goldman Sachs—all have seen their credibility evaporate faster than a startup's runway. Think tanks, with their mysterious funding sources and opaque processes, are particularly vulnerable. Who funds this research? What agenda lurks behind that white paper? In the absence of transparency, the public assumes the worst. And they're often right.
The antidote isn't better PR. It's radical openness. The same dynamic that made open source software more secure than proprietary code—thousands of eyes spotting bugs—can make transparent think tanks more credible than secretive ones. When anyone can audit your funding, verify your data, and challenge your methodology, you'd better be rigorous. Sunlight isn't just the best disinfectant; it's the best quality control.
The business case is even more compelling. Traditional think tanks guard their research like Coca-Cola guards its formula. But in the network age, hoarding information is like hoarding telephone calls—it misses the entire point. Value doesn't come from scarcity anymore; it comes from attention, trust, and network effects. The think tank that publishes its data gets cited more. The one that opens its process gets more contributors. The one that reveals its funding gets more donors—the right kind of donors, who aren't afraid of scrutiny.
I saw this movie before with journalism. Newspapers insisted their value lay in exclusive access and private sources. Then bloggers started posting their raw interviews, crowdsourcing investigations, and thinking out loud in public. The Guardian's open journalism, ProPublica's data dumps, Bellingcat's transparent investigations—they didn't just survive the trust recession. They thrived in it.
The technical enablers are all there. Blockchain can create immutable funding records. GitHub can host version-controlled research. Livestreaming can broadcast deliberations. Machine learning can help synthesize thousands of public inputs. The tools exist. What's missing is the will.
And here's where it gets interesting for investors. The transparent model doesn't just build trust—it builds moats. Every open dataset becomes a magnet for researchers. Every public deliberation creates content that drives traffic. Every transparent funding record builds a reputation that attracts more funding. It's a virtuous cycle that compounds like interest.
The closed think tank says: "Trust us, we're experts."The open think tank says: "Here's our work, check it yourself."
In a world drowning in misinformation, which one wins?
The objections are predictable. Donors want privacy! Deliberations need confidentiality! Some research is too sensitive! These are the same arguments I heard from music executives about file sharing, newspaper editors about blogging, and hotel chains about Airbnb. They're not wrong. They're just irrelevant. The market doesn't care about your objections. It cares about trust, and trust flows to transparency.
The smart think tanks are already moving. Pew Research releases its raw data. The Center for Global Development publishes donor lists. But they're still thinking incrementally—a little more openness here, a bit more disclosure there. The real opportunity is for someone to go full radical: complete transparency as a core operating principle, not a compliance checkbox.
Picture a think tank where:
Impossible? That's what they said about Wikipedia. Impractical? That's what they said about Linux. Dangerous? That's what they said about Bitcoin.
The irony is delicious. Think tanks exist to influence policy through better ideas. But they operate like medieval guilds, hoarding knowledge behind stone walls. The networked guild model flips this entirely: influence through openness, credibility through transparency, power through sharing.
We're already seeing the early adopters in adjacent fields. DeFi protocols publish every transaction. DAOs make every decision in public. Open science initiatives share raw experimental data. The prestigious journals that once gatekept knowledge are being bypassed by preprint servers. The direction is clear. The only question is who moves first in the policy world.
My bet? It won't be the incumbents. Brookings won't suddenly livestream its board meetings. Heritage won't open-source its research. The Council on Foreign Relations won't let Reddit vote on its agenda. They have too much to lose, too many donors to protect, too many traditions to uphold.
The revolution will come from the edges. A new organization, born transparent, designed for openness. It will look weird at first. Traditional funders will balk. Established researchers will scoff. The policy establishment will ignore it.
Right up until it starts winning.
Because here's what the traditionalists miss: radical transparency isn't just about ethics or trust. It's about evolutionary advantage. The transparent organization learns faster (more feedback), recruits better (attracts those who have nothing to hide), and scales infinitely (knowledge wants to be free). It's not competing on the old metrics. It's changing the game entirely.
In venture capital, we have a saying: the biggest returns come from betting against conventional wisdom. For forty years, conventional wisdom said think tanks need secrecy to maintain influence. But influence is shifting from those who control information to those who share it, from those who restrict access to those who democratize it, from those who whisper in private to those who think in public.
The glass house revolution is coming to the policy world. The only question is whether you'll be throwing stones or living in one.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)