The Singularity Passage (v1)

foreword

As futurists, we usually tend to draw an oversimplified and subjective picture of the world. It is always challenging and draining to reflect on multiple points of view and describe a complicated dramaturgy of contradicting forces.

In our numerous forecasts, many aspects are predefined:

• The group of potential winners is already on the radar.
• The triumph of technological advancement is secured.
• The singularity or the catastrophe is inevitable.

But the progress usually comes in a nuanced and inter-layered way the market has its invisible and visible hands and, most importantly, inertia; there are more players and trajectories than just two or three; the innovation is not driven only by startups and revolutionaries, and the progress lies across the cemetery of failed technologies, products and companies.

In my experience, nine out of ten startup leaders lack a broader vision of the future battlefield. Their foresight ends in listing top competitors from the first page of Google search results. I imagine that the Singularity Passage framework or a similar one will be widely used next to the Business Canvas slide in their pitch decks one day.

In my talks and workshops with corporate “innovators and transformers,” we usually focus on the product or the company itself, as if it exists in a vacuum with their customers. However, I bet that looking at alternative forces impacting the customer’s landscape will become a standard practice another day.

In my rare lectures and schools on Spectral Thinking, we discuss the idea of the human spectrum coming from the Inclusive Design and how that spectrum concept has a broader application. I hope that this notion of variability, superposition, and diversity of pathways will be taught at ordinary and business schools yet another day.

💾 To make it one step closer I’m releasing the Singularity Passage tool as an open framework under the Creative Commons license. Feel free to use, share, and rework.

about

The Singularity Passage tool was born in the context of developing the
Spectral Thinking methodology and combining in one model:

1. The notion of parallel co-existence of different actors of technological evolution and humanity's progress each with its motivation and barriers to overcome.
2. The idea of the inevitable overall movement towards some distant attractor that has no predefined form — and thus the final shape will reveal based on actors’ moves.
3. The natural plasticity of actors allows them to swap the “camp” and thus choose the field to battle on and the barrier to overcome.

There are a few things you should be aware of before we start:

1. The model is not about predicting the future or the singularity per se. The paradox is that the future always escapes our attempts to catch it, and the singularity never comes. We know that there is a light at the end of the long passage, be we only can foresee a few yards.
2. The model does not predict who will win the battle. You can figure out the starting positions, and prolong the first moves based on historic vectors, but that is it. You can make your stake but don’t know the winner.
3. The model does not draw the winning path. Instead, you will find that there are many trajectories toward the future, and there is no one easy, fast and secure. Each step is closer to winning, but it is also closer to facing the barrier and raising the chances to fail.

There are a few more things to know:

1. The model is about predicting the future. But as a combination of four forces or roles fighting for their right to exist and their truth. In ten years, you will observe the same quartet, but probably in a different shape.
2. The model is about the result of the battle. In that final fight, through the fog of time, the universe will reveal a new form of things—the one we all try to shape. We can predict its components but don’t know the unique proportion of the ingredients.
3. The model is about the trajectory leading to the objective. Among the multitude of paths, you can choose the battlefield and the barrier you will fight. And that right to choose sometimes costs a life.

1. The Time Passage

The foundation of the Singularity Passage is the notion of a time corridor. The external border of the square represents today and maybe tomorrow; it is the moment when things seem to be clear. The center represents the unclear future and blurs more and more the more distant it is.

Usually, we can consider two or three time periods based on your planning horizon and the level of the preferred details.

The time axis counts equal periods like now, now + 5 years, now + 10 years. By default, that is the primary axis. But there could be more because, in some cases, you might prefer to use a different measure of time.

The scheme gives you three additional options that usually exponentially or in a power law follow the linear time axis:

• The mass or inertia of the forming market axis represents the growth of its capitalization and the level of force required to stop such growth or revert it.
• The technological and social complexity axis grows with the progress in science, technology, and society. One might imagine here a representation of Moore’s, Metcalfe’s, or Reed’s laws.
• The entrance fee axis grows with the increment of the resources required for strangers to enter the evolving market and become one of its leaders. Consider here the complexity of relationship networks, technology, or regulation to follow.

The order of the axes is not essential. But their presence in the scheme is crucial because it frames the feeling of time as a complex process with many dependencies. So when you think about making progress in time, you might choose the most relevant form of time.

For example, you might begin with the growing mass or inertia axis, like increasing the user base or raising a new investment round. Then after some reflection, it might lead you to the idea of doing a quick technological leap based on the user data you collected (that is the complexity axis). And lastly, you might think about building a barrier for your competitors by acquiring talent, IP, or startups from the market (the entrance fee axis).

Of course, you might define your axes if you follow the requirement to use them as an alternative form of measuring time. To consider other options, ask yourselves what continuously grows over time in your domain.

• Is it the computational ability?
• Is it the speed of DNA analysis?
• Is it the speed and availability of the internet?
• Is it the local mobility of people?
• …

You can turn any long-term trend into a time axis if it supports your reflection and analysis.

2. The Motivation Matrix

The second “frame” for the passage is the matrix of actor motivation. We will use two fundamental dichotomies:

1. Open or closed competition divides actors into those who prefer market wars and those who stay out of the market.
2. Orientation towards preserving or developing leads to either legacy conservation or admiration of the progress inevitability.

Thus we have a matrix of four basic camps of actors with unique competition objectives:

• “Open preserving”: to fight against the past themselves.
• “Closed preserving”: to battle with the natural evolution.
• “Closed developing”: to combat the flow of time.
• “Open developing”: to overthrow the existing order of things.

It is important to note that a particular player usually stays in the superposition of roles (or camps), with some dominant behavior type for each product, life-cycle stage, or market territory.

3. The Recombination Factory

Factory = established production process; recombination = reusing what already exists with minimal changes; motivation = preserving existing audience and continuously recouping past investments; market = open competition.

The actors of the “Recombination Factory” quadrant face more or less open market competition, but their biggest competitor is their past.

For a box product, it means it is necessary to sell a new version of the same product to their existing user base ahead of other competitors. So each year, Apple will try to sell you a new iPhone, BMW will offer you to exchange your old car, and Nike will promote you a new seasonal pair of sneakers.

For a subscription model, actors will struggle to keep their clients paying, and thus, they will continue working on exclusive offers and features not available in alternative services.

But the key motivation for all these actors is not to release a radically new product. Instead, it is to keep generating revenue while minimizing audience losses and avoiding dramatic production changes.

The factory should continue working if it can. And if you are selling cars, you should not change the chassis technology (just because you can) to make it look innovative; probably, it is enough to add cheaper rotating mirrors or update the shape. If it is the case, then the latter is what such an actor will do.

The primary development logic is iteration: a careful (not to miss with a lean) innovation without super-efforts, but repeatedly. Again and again. The core argument is “minimally required.”

The barrier of consumer inertia

Each new product in this quadrant faces a barrier of consumer inertia: a set of preferences, stereotypes, habits, and attachments to already-owned products.

In many cases, the value of a new offer is not enough. Thus, the product fails as a category as it happened with 3D television, Windows Vista, folded phones, or each time you decide to skip 2–3 releases of a new phone or laptop before you buy a new one.

4. The Control Bureau

Bureau = isolated R&D entity dependent on the power bearer; control = the tools to preserve the system status; motivation of the bearer = maintain the situation and prevent future threats; market = closed or hidden (nontransparent).

The “Control Bureau” quadrant requires a paired set of actors: a power bearer and an innovative executor of the powered will. The first one uses the second one to fight against evolution, entropy, and the nature of things.

The power bearer is usually incapable of innovations on its own but has access to required resources. The executor is a compact agent (e.g., an integrator, construction bureau, or development studio) capable of channeling innovation from inside and external partners.

The bearer’s motivation is simple: to preserve the power by subjugating the processes going out of control via new tools to manage, guide, influence, suppress, or manipulate. The executor’s motivation ranges depending on the power source from pure monetary to the soviet “sharashka” model.

The relationship between these two is closed and nontransparent for the external world. In some cases, the executor is just a subsidiary of the bearer (but doesn’t represent its core function!). The bearer is usually a monopolist who does not have any internal intent or desire to be open or implement significant internal changes. The innovations implemented by the executor are more like weapons rather than something involving a profound transformation from the inside.

On top of the prominent governmental actors traditionally using the “Control Bureau” model, other types of organizations also follow it:

• A banking system that implements a biometrics solution to control the security contour;
• A chipset manufacturer that designs a new model to load with new orders factories used by its competitors;
• An amusement park that orders a new VR attraction to keep its innovative status in the children’s eyes.

The primary development logic is to reactively strike ahead. Once the bearer realizes the threat, it proactively clears the battlefield from the competitors, erects defensive redoubts, and requires more than enough innovation from the executor.

The overlord rejection barrier

The biggest challenge the “bearer-executor” pair faces is the overlord rejection barrier. Each bearer has a power source, and that power source usually doesn’t like over-concentration and strengthening the power in one hand. So the more successful solution the executor (bureau) provides, the better the bearer controls the situation, and the more fear it produces in the air.

“You do it without respect.”

The rejection might grow roots in the pair itself, which leads to sabotage: employees of the executor or the bearer deny the cooperation. In many cases, such rejection comes from the fear that the same technology they implement one day the bearer will use against them.

5. The Anti-Pain Laboratory

Lab = isolated R&D entity dependent; anti-pain = searching for a “cure” or a path for salvation; motivation = solving a deeply personal problem ahead of time; market = closed or not relevant.

The “Anti-Pain Lab” quadrant players also fight against nature, but instead of evolution, they focus on time itself. Unfortunately for them, available time is not enough; the hours, the months, and the years flow through your fingers and can’t flow back. The pain they see, they feel, requires an immediate solution. It is them who should fix it and nobody else. In some cases, they would put their lives to make it right and done.

The pain might take different forms: for some, it is forest fires and nature suffering; for others, it is the oncology issue of a friend or another close person; for the third, it is an unsolved mathematical problem or universe mystery; for the fourth, is a suboptimal business process; for the fifth, it is a dull dullness.

Each pain requires its crusade toward the unknown and beyond. It is research and looking for something that never existed: new knowledge, paths, territories, methods, tools, and points of view. There will be many victims and false paths in that journey. The route will absorb and shallow many heroes, and they will forget why they followed it. Those few survivors capable of stopping with a solution in their hands might bring it to the pain source.

It is a journey of cagy lone wolfs, looking for their unique path, not noticing competitors, and hidden from the world’s eyes, unless they will find what they are looking for.

The primary development logic is to jump into the unknown, searching for a miracle. To break through the frontier of science, technology, and society, while looking for a cure for something deeply personal. Thus, the “Anti-Pain Lab” quadrant players inevitably change themselves on the path, risking becoming one with it.

The niche market barrier

The biggest challenge for the Anti-Pain Lab is scaling: moving from a solution for a truly localized pain to a mass market will take time and might never happen. The pain that served as an innovation engine could be the object of interest of a pretty small group of people at the moment. And the innovator probably never thought about building the production pipeline, organizing the distribution network, or even talking with potential clients.

6. The Nonconformism Spark

Spark = igniting a fundamental change for the system; nonconformism = fighting against the existing order; motivation = to profoundly and truly change the society or market to a better and more fair model; market = the whole open world.

The fourth quadrant is the house of those committed to change: people, communities, and movements building something new because they are not ok with the current state of things. They rise against the order and its henchmen and offer an alternative agenda. The spark of nonconformism is obliged to flush, ignite the flame and go out being reborn in a new time like a phoenix.

The spark carriers target big masses and fundamental changes; they are considered anarchists by society. If you are going to change the financial system, then all at once to a new crypto-based, fair and decentralized one. If you are going to bring VR, make it massive and cheap, even if it is just cardboard. If we are going through Digital Transformation, then we should teach AI from kindergarten. If we fight climate change, then we should demand carbon-negative effects and introduce the rights of nature.

We invented the hype.

The pain of nonconformists unites people. The movement attracts all the deprived, offended, forgotten, and thrown into the margins of history due to competition or clearing the “market.” Unity gives hope for a chance to win and come back. The opposition is as open and public as possible.

We might die, but things never will be the same.

The union requires simple and accessible ideas so that everyone could try, but technically advanced and radical so that no one could adapt or mimic without proportional changes.

The primary development logic is igniting the wave of changes, charging the masses of people with accessible and ready-for-scaling ideas and tools, and making them the catalyst of a market-wide and society-broad transformation.

The failed expectations barrier

The most challenging issue for the spark is the fast burning out of the “material.” Without igniting a big enough audience, it can’t initiate the transformation. Without changes, the involved people face their biggest fear — the failure to reach the promise when they made their ultimate stake. That is the failed expectations barrier.

After the boom and hype calm down, the feeling of disillusion, mass psychosis, and growing demand for tranquilizers come.

The adepts’ disappointment grows: they expected a better future yesterday, but it never came. It always turns out that changing the system is a complicated issue. The inertia is so enormous that you can’t change its direction in one moment. And the alternate agenda has its side effects as well.

7. The transfer mechanics

Now having defined the camps, let’s discuss the migration routes. It is one of the key aspects of understanding the framework and its dynamics.

None of the roles is eternal and defined forever. In practice, many players swap roles, choosing the most convenient one at a particular moment, allowing them to move faster or reach the goal with fewer resources. The Singularity Passage tool allows one to consciously choose the battlefield: the competition model and the set of barriers.

From the Recombination Factory

To the Control Bureau: reach the market monopolization. The product development logic swaps to securing the boundaries and clearing out the competition. The product team is emasculated to the support role, continuously degrading from an independent, leading position to a “bureau” agency model.

• Example. The frozen development of Internet Explorer when reached 90%+ share of the web-browsers market.

To the Anti-Pain Laboratory: to break through the existing technology silos and cycles, the player launches a semi-independent research facility (lab) or academic program to search for what is coming next and proactively collect IP.

• Example. Microsoft Research focuses on a broad range of topics not directly connected with the current business and products of the company.

To the Nonconformism Spark: while losing a direct competition, the player attempts to change the game rules by launching a global alternative initiative zeroing the starting positions for everyone.

• Example. Google/Mozilla/Opera and others initiated the WHATWG movement as an alternative to stagnating W3C and IE6 dominance in the browser market.

From the Control Bureau

To the Anti-Pain Laboratory: the power bearer directs a portion of the resource to solve the issues of the power source to maintain its usefulness state. But the bearer is not interested in the results, so it directs the support to random, most active, [or even corrupted] labs.

• Example. Most governmental and monopolistic corporation grant programs fail into that category and chase a social image profit.

To the Nonconformism Spark: the power bearer launches a contr-movement to intercept a potentially threatening agenda to take control over it, demolish and blur it along the way.

• Example. The fossil fuel companies push for the “blue hydrogen” approach as an alternative to the “green” one by spreading opposite voices, research data, and old-fashioned lobbyism.

To the Recombination Factory: privatize and split a monopoly force under external pressure. Usually, new entities are reassembled around the execution bureau, controlling the technical implementation.

• Example. The split of AT&T into seven independent companies, part of which later became Verizon, and others merged into the new AT&T.

From the Anti-Pain Laboratory

To the Nonconformism Spark: The lab launches an open movement to shift to a new technology-based model based on the found transformative breakthrough.

• Example. The cryptocurrencies movement and bitcoin as a fundament for a new model of trusted and transparent relationships. One might also think about the GNU-Linux movement towards free and open-source software.

To the Recombination Factory: form a startup, raise an investment round, begin building the production and delivery pipeline, try to merge with an existing company, and try harder to survive as an independent entity.

• Example. The rise of the Moderna company from the first discoveries in pluripotent stem cells to one of the leading COVID-19 vaccine producers.

To the Control Bureau: commercialize the niche development through contractual work for the power bearer, transforming into an executor bureau role.

• Example. Some constructor and research labs and bureaus at universities and scientific institutions work on classified contracts for the Department of Defense and its agencies.

From the Nonconformism Spark

To the Recombination Factory: commercialize the internal market growing inside the movement bubble by releasing tools and services for its members.

• Example. Coinbase rose on the bitcoin hype and emerged from a crypto wallet to one of the largest crypto-exchange listed on Nasdaq.

To the Control Bureau: conservation and consolidation of the movement to prevent further degradation by forming a monopoly-like scheme between the ideology bearer and the technological core.

• Example. The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) was formally developed and introduced as an open alternative to proprietary and closed mobile systems (e.g., iOS) and developed by a broad consortium of companies, but factually is a Google monopoly.

To the Anti-Pain Laboratory: the movement participants enclose themselves to find a new “next-generation” solution, disappointed by not enough achievements, speed, and radicality when faced with system resistance.

• Example. Linus Torvalds created the Git system to support Linux development after other free or open-source software failed to support the community and meet the efficiency requirements.

8. Let’s look at an example: Metaverse.

By now, you have a basic idea of all the core components of the Singularity Passage framework, but how does it work? Let’s apply it to something specific: the Metaverse.

“The Metaverse is an expansive network of persistent, real-time rendered 3D worlds and simulations that support continuity of identity, objects, history, payments, and entitlements, and can be experienced synchronously by an effectively unlimited number of users, each with an individual sense of presence.” — Matthew Ball.

We will use the Miro template from Section 9. And as a preliminary step, we place the core concept in the center of the map. We should also check the axes and ensure they make sense for our topic.

I. Fulfill the four base camps

In the Recombination Factory quadrant, we have a bunch of IT companies looking for options to prolong the lifetime of their existing products and services. In the Metaverse case, we should look into how they evolved through integrating AR and VR technologies:

• For Sony, VR is an extension of the PlayStation console;
• Microsoft is looking for the next screen for its Windows and Office-related scenarios, including the hybrid model of work;
• Facebook is trying to define what is next for the social network;
• Game studios and game engine developing companies like Epic consider AR/VR a new playing medium.

We could expect a significant shift in the strategy once a mixed reality headset, including the software, becomes a cheap enough, robust, and standalone platform. Virtual working spaces for Oculus (Horizon WorkRooms) and Hololens — are a clear move in that direction, but not enough to overcome the user inertia barrier.

Let’s move to the Control Bureau quadrant. The key players are the military, police, and other special force services. For them, integrating a layer of up-to-date information is simply the question of the life or death of their warriors, which have to operate on a dynamic, constantly changing battlefield.

The latest example is the USA Department of Defense’s contract with Microsoft on building an adapted version of the Hololens helmet. IT company plays the role of the executor in that pair. DoD is striking ahead of whatever their enemies might imagine, trying to prepare for the battlefield or the gangster wars of the next 10–20 years.

The downside of such contracts is the internal resistance of the IT companies’ employees, who are not happy working for the repression and death generation engine. It is a case of the overlord rejection barrier.

One more player in that quadrant is another governmental branch (usually also a part of the DoD or its analog in other countries) — space agencies like NASA. They maintain control over satellite positioning systems (GPS) and will play an essential role in the Metaverse story.

Today such operators should fear a threat from alternative positioning systems based on local communications (e.g., Bluetooth, Computer Vision).

In the Anti-Pain Laboratory quadrant, primary efforts will focus on cracking the ultimate AR/VR mystery: how all the senses (vision, hearing, smelling, vestibular, and others) work on a deep neurological level because the ultimate immersion has to deal with the brain itself.

But the majority of such research activities are run not to build the future of AR/VR per se but to understand the reason and mechanics of various diseases and deviations and fix or compensate for them. It is the source of a genuinely personal pain that drives researchers.

The previous generation of studies allowed us to deal with optics:

• Understand and track eye movements and gaze direction;
• Build a believable holographic image anchored to the space;
• Make first progress in focal-aware image rendering;
• Implement color correction for various use cases.

Researchers also achieved similar progress in augmented hearing technologies.

Finally, the Nonconformism Spark is a “freak parade” of those ahead of their time, society, market, and production readiness.

Remember early 90s attempts to launch virtual worlds (SecondLife)? Or the Google Glass boom that provoked a paranoid reaction in society? How about massive cheap cardboard VR devices? Each time explosive growth was followed by a massive disappointment. People don’t live in the VR of the 90s; there are no people on the streets wearing AR glasses, and VR-cardboard quality made people sick.

So the whole Metaverse concept is just a new spark. But we don’t yet have either strong visionary leaders or clear and straightforward join rules.

II. Fulfill the next wave of evolution for each camp

Next, let’s quickly discuss what should we expect on the second wave in each camp:

In the Recombination Factory, we observe early signs of future game engines redesigned for the Metaverse and experiences’ streaming, allowing the blending of real and virtual worlds. Another perspective product is the next generation of mixed reality headsets and glasses: cloud-connected through 5G+, context-aware, with built-in voice assistants.

In the Control Bureau, the main focus will be on a combination of:

1. a military-grade mixed reality headset that is capable of augmenting sensory systems and providing updates from the field to HQ and
2. a real-time battle engine connected to satellite imagery, field sensors from soldiers, and autonomous drones, and assisting in choosing the best tactics through simulations.

In the Anti-Pain Laboratory, the next generation of research will dig deeper into the visual or auditory cortex and other sensory systems inside the brain and — most importantly — the information post-processing systems.

In the Nonconformism Spark, there are two North Stars:

1. The Metaverse concept itself, that today is primarily skeuomorphic but should evolve;
2. The idea of a supernatural vision ability like x-ray vision overcoming the biological limits of human nature.

III. Fulfill the camp swapping (transfer) opportunities for yet another wave for each camp

The final step focuses on expanding further the second wave and drafting the third one. For that let’s discuss what are the potential “transfers” and migration routes.

As the new market grows, we should expect the following actions from the Recombination Factory players:

• Make a deal with a customer from the Control Bureau quadrant that is losing its dominance or efficacy. Imagine a “meta-democracy” and political agitation engine embedded into a gaming Metaverse, and also put under government supervision, that will interact with citizens and will control the advertisements, potentially violent communications, virtual activism, etc.
• Jump into a Nonconformism Spark mode to launch a new entertainment “blue ocean,” based on advancements in VR, neurotechnologies, and bio-stimulation: e.g., drive the second sexual revolution or legalize leisure experiences that currently are primarily in gray and dark zones, but might become massive and safe through VR, AI, and robotics.
• Invest in a broad range of the "Anti-Pain Labs" to proactively acquire the most promising IP that will allow surpassing technical barriers and inject new qualities into their existing portfolio: neuro interfaces, haptic experiences, new optic systems, and electric, bio, or drug-based stimulation.

What transitions should we expect from the Control Bureau?

• DoD agencies will invest in “Anti-Pain Labs” to explore extreme scenarios applicable to military and citizen usage. Use cases to watch: wearable brain scanning, a compact vision system for augmentation in invisible parts of the light spectrum, subterranean and through-wall territory scanning in real-time.
• Policy, security services, and politics will mimic the “Nonconformism Spark” approach promoting the theme of cyber threats and the necessity to introduce a new social order and regulation to fight cybercrime and information intervention from hostile countries. They will consider Metaverse as a new battlefield after social networks.
• Military and patriotic forces will look into mass-market and potential alliances with game companies (the Recombination Factory). The idea is to use their channel and experiences to train and select future cyber-soldiers, as we have seen with the classic sport many times.

Next, we can forecast the following transitions from the Anti-Pain Laboratory quadrant:

• Towards the Nonconformism Spark by developing an open system of the public space digital augmentation ranging from fighting the physical restriction on protest rallies to igniting a more creative and colorful world on top of the gray walls to ensuring the safety of the physical spaces (all the spoken rules should become contextually visible).
• Towards the Recombination Factory by building M&A-ready startups or producing critical components for the growing AR/VR market (as we have seen previously with the eye-trackers): noninvasive chipsets for the brain and electromyo-scanning and stimulation. Another alternative is to kick off a brand new marker: the Dream Reality (DR), focused on the dream and trans experiences.
• Towards the executor role in the Control Bureau pair: using AR/VR to heal psychological disorders and stresses and rehabilitate soldiers’ physical traumas. It is an excellent source of funding for civilian market research.

The moves to watch in the Nonconformism Spark quadrant:

• “Recombination Factory” moves through building an internal marketplace to monetize the “shared vision” movement, built on the “million eyes” concept to watch over life and nature.
• “Cocooning into Control Bureau” moves via setting rules and standards to integrate augmented ads and potentially dangerous modules into public spaces. An alternative zone of interest is putting “under control” semi-legal use cases (virtual and neuro drugs, high-adrenaline, sexual, and other experiences).
• “Enclosing into Anti-Pain Lab” moves to look for next-gen transformational solutions: mixed-reality lenses, avoiding the freaking look of glasses and helmets; tools for “crystallization” (memorizing) of physical objects, environments, and experiences for AR/VR, including trusted storage.

Resume

We created the next 2–3 waves in the Singularity Passage for the Metaverse by exploring potential players’ moves. To detail that vision, you can do the following:

1. Add new players and ideas for all waves, cluster, and explore what could be their next moves.
2. Study potential signals that support or delay created vision. It is a good exercise for continuous execution once you fulfill the scheme because now you know what signs await.
3. Consider what could be in the center of the passage when the spark of your current theme fades. It should reborn into something new each 2–3 waves.

9. Templates

💾 For practical usage there is

• a Miro template (Miroverse), and
• a pdf template (inside a copy of this article).

They might differ in minor details and colors but are made for collaboration rather than designed for a visual glance.

10. Feedback

If you have any usage questions, would like to give me some feedback, found a typo, or are willing to invite me for a talk, seminar/lecture, or even (o-ho-ho) a workshop on using the Singularity Passage, don’t hesitate to contact me:

• constantin@kichinsky.ru
• @constantinkichinsky (telegram)

11. License

The Singularity Passage framework, template, and this guidance are created by Constantin Kichinsky and are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

How to attribute:

Yay!