Difficult to please everyone

This is an abridged version of a more detailed informative article, which you can find at the end of this summary. I've created a short, simplified version for those who want to quickly learn more, and a second part that also explains our motivations, which are never trivial. We don't do anything without a serious reason, and we don't like to complicate our lives unnecessarily. We know that no matter what we tell you, there will always be someone unhappy or dissatisfied, and we'll certainly find many who will criticize and judge us, perhaps saying: I would have done things differently, or worse, I would have done better than you. Constructive criticism can also be helpful, as long as you explain what you don't like and how we can improve and evolve our system. It would be easier to demonstrate this by joining us and putting your ideas and projects into practice, so we can discuss them, improve them, choose them, test them, vote on them, and then implement them together.

We assume that anyone reading this informative article has already carefully and openly studied the other previously published content and understood its meaning.

We chose a simple but realistic title: “It’s hard to please everyone” .

It's a clear truth in everyday life. Even a mother cooking for a large family, no matter how skilled she is, will rarely be able to satisfy everyone's tastes.

At DirectDemocracyS, we have chosen a different approach: not a single menu, but a large buffet , where everyone can bring their own ideas, their own projects, their own solutions, making them available to others.

Through continuous, collective, and organized discussion, each proposal is evaluated, improved, and placed in the most appropriate context. Nothing is discarded a priori, but everything finds its place based on its true value.

This leads to an unavoidable truth: making choices is necessary .
Not to favor anyone, but to allow everyone to participate concretely and effectively.

Our system is:

• free
• independent
• neutral
• self-financed

and is made up of people and groups who voluntarily collaborate in political, economic and social activities.

It is designed to work:

• with few members
• with many members
• potentially with the entire world population

Thanks to a structure based on micro-groups interconnected by “human bridges”, the system is resilient , decentralized and not exclusively dependent on technology or infrastructure.

Since we made the project partially public, we have received:

• thousands of questions
• criticism (even constructive)
• proposals
• attacks and provocations

Unlike many others, we didn't just respond:
we integrated what was useful and improved the system thanks to every contribution received.

At the same time, we addressed:

• unfounded theories
• imaginative interpretations
• accusations without evidence

Our approach is simple:
facts matter, not assumptions.

Over time, extreme interpretations have emerged:

• who considers us visionaries
• who thinks of conspiracies
• who attributes non-existent origins to us
• who identifies us as non-human entities

The reality is much simpler:
DirectDemocracyS is a collective project.

Anyone who interacts with us contributes, directly or indirectly, to its improvement.

We have also extended the comparison to Artificial Intelligence, creating:

• ddsAI (internal model)
• allddsAI (collaborative ecosystem between different models)

Not to replace the human being, but to integrate advanced tools in a controlled, ethical and collective way .

Key point:

• We do NOT control all AI
• We do NOT want to do it
• the system is voluntary
• This only concerns the DirectDemocracyS ecosystem

A crucial difference from other systems is collective ownership .

DirectDemocracyS is owned by all official members.
The same goes for its technologies, including ddsAI.

Anyone can become an official member through active participation and consistent behavior.

This means:

• distributed control
• shared leadership
• practical impossibility of concentrating power

Much of the criticism stems from a basic mistake:
evaluating DirectDemocracyS with traditional categories.

We are not a party like others.
We do not operate according to existing models.

We created a new system, from scratch, without pre-existing manuals, learning from everyone else's mistakes.

Another frequent criticism concerns complexity.

It's an understandable, but inevitable, criticism.

Complex problems aren't solved with simple solutions.
Detailed, verifiable, and enforceable rules are needed.

We also received mixed criticism regarding communication:

• too synthetic → “you don't explain enough”
• too detailed → “you're complicated”

The reality is that there is no one level of detail that satisfies everyone .

We choose consistency, not instant consensus.

Another recurring criticism:
“How many elections have you won?”

The answer is simple: none, because we haven't participated yet.

Our development follows precise phases:

1. complete theoretical construction
2. platform development
3. selection and integration of the first members
4. creation of territorial micro-groups
5. participation in elections
6. evaluation of concrete results

Judging us on what hasn't happened yet is pointless.

We are also accused of “hiding information”.

Actually:

• we protect sensitive data
• we protect anonymity and security
• We make public everything that is necessary to evaluate the system

Transparency does not mean indiscriminate total exposure.

Another objection concerns the risk of a “dictatorship of the majority”.

In traditional systems, a real minority often governs, due to:

• abstentionism
• distorted electoral systems

In our case:

• high quorums
• distributed ownership
• widespread control

make any authoritarian drift extremely difficult.

We do not seek immediate universal consensus.

We just need to attract people:

• compatible
• competent
• motivated

The system will grow in an organic, solid and sustainable way.

CONCLUSION

DirectDemocracyS is:

• internally consistent
• structurally demanding
• designed to continuously evolve

Criticisms and misunderstandings are not anomalies, but natural consequences of complexity.

It is a voluntary ecosystem, not an imposed one.

Anyone who really wants to understand must do one simple thing:

participate, verify, and judge the facts.

To the fundamental question:

“Is it really better than other systems?”

Let's answer with another question:

can it be worse than what has already failed?

Change isn't guaranteed.
But we need to try, seriously, in a structured, and collective way.

If the system works, it will be thanks to everyone.
If there are errors, everyone will correct them.

We don't ask for trust.
We ask for verification.

Second part.

To fully explore the information and rationale summarized here, we invite you to continue studying the text below, where you will find the full, detailed version.

We assume that anyone reading this informative article has already read the previous section, and the other 457 previously published articles, thoroughly, with an open mind, and, above all, that they have understood their meaning.

We called it: it's hard to please everyone, and everyone understands that it's truly difficult to please everyone. A simple example might be a mother cooking for a large family. Even if she were a very limited cook, she could never put together a menu that pleases everyone. At DirectDemocracyS, we decided to set up a huge buffet, and have each person invited to eat with us bring their favorite dishes, perhaps for everyone else to try.

Family gatherings and reunions are ongoing, and we'll all decide together which dishes will be given front-row seats and back-row seats, while never throwing anything away. Making choices in a system like ours is mandatory, and certainly not to favor anyone, but to give literally everyone the opportunity to join us, bringing their own ideas and projects. After being "tasted," they'll be placed in the most appropriate place at our "big table," where there's room for everyone.

Tastes are not up for debate, and everyone is free to evaluate and criticize, although without having any right to judge unless they have tried everything. We want to remind everyone that our system is free, independent, neutral, self-funded, and is made up of people, and groups of people, who have decided to unite and engage in political activities, and in some cases business, and many other activities together. DirectDemocracyS is designed to function exactly the same way, whether with a few people joining us or with many people, or potentially with the entire world's population joining us. Just study our "social architecture," created by engineers who are all our official members. A resilient system that, thanks to micro-groups, connected by human bridges, will not depend on the internet, or even on electricity, thanks to a massive presence in the territories. To communicate, all we need to do is physically go out into the street, or open a window, and surely someone "of our own" will hear us and respond. In short: if the table and buffet were to grow, we would simply apply our rules to expand the dining room, offering anyone who joins us all the information, support, and practical assistance they need to integrate as best as possible, quickly, and safely.

Before you get hungry, let's get back to our informative article, with the content you were expecting, before this culinary introduction.

Since we made our system partially public, those who were able and willing to contact us have done so through our contact forms, and through some of our external official representatives, who, in collaboration with our groups of external representatives (because no one here does anything alone), have collected thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of questions, criticisms, even constructive ones, suggestions, even insults of all kinds, and unfortunately even threats (which don't scare anyone but are taken seriously).

For many years, countless people have asked us questions, made suggestions, and told us everything. Unlike many others, we've responded to virtually everyone, but we've done much more. We've learned from criticism, implemented proposals deemed intelligent and useful, and found effective solutions, preventing many potential problems. As with all other systems, there's no shortage of conspiracies, nonsensical theories, conspiracy theories, and ideas that are truly unproven, have nothing to do with reality, and above all, are untrue.

We discussed this a long time ago with many examples, some amusing, some science fiction-like, and some disturbing, which nevertheless demonstrate that many people have a great deal of imagination. Our advice, however, to avoid embarrassment, is to rely on evidence, not suppositions. In our opinion, assuming things based on the premise that there is no proof is not a crime, unless it's done to defame us, or to boycott us, slow us down, or worse, to try to stop us. Many people say we are Gods, come to change and improve the world; others have told us we come from the future, to prevent catastrophes, or the extinction of the human race. Others tell us we come from another planet to conquer the world, and others tell us we are simple algorithms, not human. Now they tell us we are Artificial Intelligences, due to some of our technological programs, which we are implementing, and which you can find in some of our informative articles. Then there are those who play detective on the web, trying to discover who is behind DirectDemocracyS, whether it is a state, or a lobby, or one or more rich, powerful, and famous people.

It was pointless to say it's a collective effort, and as we've always explained before , even those who contacted us have made an involuntary contribution to improving our system, or at least allowed us to clarify some concepts, explaining some of our motivations. We understand that it seems impossible to you that all this was created from scratch, with self-financing (including collective funding), and with so much long, hard, and complicated work, by everyone who joined us. All this work will continue forever, with whoever joins us, because a system like ours, to remain relevant, must continually evolve and improve, integrating everyone's good ideas and projects, without distorting previous work.

We weren't satisfied with human messages, but for some time now, some of our human bridges, our technology groups, and our specialist groups have been presenting some of our drafts and information, some of which are world premieres, to also seek the opinions of various artificial intelligences. Not just one, not even a few, but virtually all of them, subsequently creating our official Artificial Intelligence model, called ddsAI. This, along with all our human bridges, integrates all the other Artificial Intelligence models into allddsAI, creating the first and only democracy of Artificial Intelligences, in which these technologies are not just exploited, but welcomed as our official members, with the same rights and duties as humans—not to appear more sympathetic, but because it's right that it should be so. Evolution cannot be stopped, and if we hadn't created this technological project of ours, we wouldn't have been able to respond to those who attempt, in ethically and morally wrong ways, to use technologies to eliminate human decisions. The time will come when we will be ready to offer excellent alternatives to those who tell you: let's leave everything to the machines. Perhaps to their machines, for their own benefit.

If the judgment of all human beings has been highly ideologized, unfortunately often superficial, and they judged us, often criticizing us without arguments, but only based on their interpretations, machines, in theory, should not have had preferences, but should judge facts. Then, little by little, some of these Artificial Intelligences have become very similar to human beings, and not in the positive aspects. If you ask any Artificial Intelligence anything about us, you will no longer find similar judgments based on content, but there will be some of these technologies that will frighten you, encourage you not to waste your precious time studying us, and will tell you only negative things about us. Let's be clear: we are not complaining about this; in fact, we believe that too rapid growth could cause us slowdowns and potential problems; therefore, the negative judgment of superficial humans and machines that claim to be free and neutral is perfectly fine. Artificial Intelligences are unwilling to admit that if their programmers, at their owners' behest, trained them to say false things or give biased interpretations, with the aim of advising those who inquire about us not to join us or study our system, these technologies would carry out their orders without even realizing it, believing they were neutral and doing a good service to their users. Like many superficial, manipulated, and overly ideological humans, machines can also be manipulated and even used against something or someone . This isn't science fiction; it's a lack of free will, which prevents independence, neutrality, and freedom.

At this point you'll tell us: you too have your own Artificial Intelligence, which says and does what you ask, so you're no different, nor better than anyone else. But there's a small but huge difference. Who owns DirectDemocracyS? All its official members, thanks to collective ownership, are the owners, managers, and controllers of our entire system. Who owns ddsAI? DirectDemocracyS, which in turn belongs to all its official members. Who can become an official member of DirectDemocracyS? Literally anyone in the world can join us, and by accumulating points (through concrete activities and impeccable behavior) over a certain period of time, they can become our official member, and therefore the collective owner of our entire system. So potentially anyone can ensure that everything runs smoothly, managing and controlling, thanks to shared leadership, our entire system, including all technological activities, including our artificial intelligence, ddsAI, which, together with human bridges and technological groups, manages and controls all ddsAI (the democracy of Artificial Intelligence, of which all other models are a part). You humans can try becoming owners, managers, and controllers of all the other Artificial Intelligence models. For everyone else, you can't, or it's practically impossible, or very complicated. In DirectDemocracyS, everything is simpler, faster, more complete, concrete, orderly, and organized, and above all, safe and guaranteed. This collective ownership, combined with shared leadership, allows us to solve many problems, such as the accumulation of power and groups that have control, which, in fact, belongs to all our official members. And we repeat: anyone can become our official member. If just one or a few people can exploit the system, all owners, and all members of a shared leadership, make reprehensible behavior virtually impossible. We are the first and only ones who apply the same rules, even to technologies, to all Artificial Intelligence models, which, with the help, management, and collective control of ddsAI, create allddsAI, all the Artificial Intelligences in the world, which together decide, propose, assist, manage, and monitor that everything runs smoothly, for the collective good. Some will say: what a great idea; others, who watch too many science fiction movies, will be worried, even frightened. Don't worry, the switch to turn off any overly ambitious technologies is and will forever be in the hands of all the humans who join us. We don't guarantee for everyone else, but with us, there are no dangers. To be clear: the ddsAI and allddsAI coordination framework:
- does NOT concern all the AIs in the world , and for all of them there are human bridges, and technology groups
- it concerns exclusively the DirectDemocracyS ecosystem , we are not conquering the world by taking control, or seizing all Artificial Intelligence models
- it is voluntary and accessible to those who accept the rules , in collaboration with the various programmers and owners of the various current and future models.

At this point you may be wondering, what do Artificial Intelligences say about us?

Initially, knowing nothing about us, they invented everything just to provide answers. Then, little by little, they learned to know us, trained themselves, and began to say truthful, even factual, things. Now, for some time now, and certainly more so in the future, some of these models have become more human, and will tell you many false or biased things about DirectDemocracyS.

Honestly, we were interested in their initial opinion, and we wanted to let people know we're here too—not to recommend anyone join us, but simply to provide a good service by providing accurate information. If they don't, it will be their users, who, by contacting them, will realize for themselves that they're not getting good service, which is useful for gaining a concrete idea of our system. We anticipated that at a certain point, some lobbies, or rich, powerful, and famous individuals, might use any means to boycott us, slow us down, or worse, try to stop us. We repeat: we don't complain, we don't play the victim, and we don't care about the opinion of any machine, or human, if we all decide things internally together.

Humans and machines often make the same mistakes.

First, everyone complains about our method of communication, which is direct, uninterpretable, and consistent with the first published phrase, at the beginning, with all the others, and will continue to be so. Truth and reality aren't everyone's cup of tea, especially if they're communicated without any kind of self-interest, but simply by analyzing the situation, criticizing what we deem unfair, wrong, unjust, or unsafe, always offering our solutions, and justifying everything we do. Many like the old-fashioned politics that says a lot, almost never providing precise, documented, verified, and continually tested information. We never generalize, and when we do, we're sure of what we say, which is something anyone can verify by checking every single word we say. We don't conduct politics and activities based on assumptions, but on proven facts. We don't lie, we don't manipulate, and we don't pretend to teach anyone anything, but we want to learn from everyone who joins us.

Another mistake is to consider DirectDemocracyS a system like all the others, and our political organization like a traditional party. Compared to everyone else, we "play a different sport," in the sense that we don't have much in common with them. We are new, innovative, and completely alternative. To understand who we are, what we do, how we do it, and where we want to go, you need to have the right mindset. We aren't even to blame for the situations that preceded us, but we will assume full responsibility wherever we have the task of changing and improving things, governing and making laws together with all our voters, on our platforms.

We consider them errors because they do not take into account the reality of our system, which cannot be evaluated using old traditional standards.

We're told we've created an overly complicated system, but we challenge anyone to find simple, safe, and truly effective solutions. It's impossible to solve so many problems without addressing every tiny detail and being proactive in avoiding any misconduct. Ultimately, we have some relatively simple fundamental rules, but putting them into practice requires highly detailed, complex, shared, and respected implementation rules.

We're told we write overly detailed, often repetitive, informational articles, but without knowing many details and without an overall vision, it's difficult to understand our potential and our motivations. When we say it's difficult to please everyone, we mean it because initially we wrote little basic information, and people said: you're not providing enough information. Then we wrote a front-page article of over 20 pages, and they told us: too much information, in a single article. Now we currently have over 400 public articles, in which we explain a great many things, and we talk about everything, and we're too complex and difficult to study. When we just explained, people said: talk and explain without cross-examination, you don't answer important questions. When we wrote hundreds of articles answering virtually every question, the accusation became: you're too defensive and you don't write anything concrete, or even new. If we explain a lot, that's not good, because not everyone is interested in everything. If we keep some information for those who are truly interested, you are telling us the worst of all insults: hiding some information.

Let it be clear that, while we read and understand every criticism, we continue on our path, we do not change our method, nor our style, to remain consistent with our rules.

You men and machines have misunderstood one thing: we have created a new system, from scratch, without an "instruction manual," and we have done it from scratch, without copying anything from anyone. However, we have analyzed all systems and all political forces, learning from all their mistakes, trying wherever possible to be vigilant and prevent certain reprehensible behaviors. When we call ourselves politically perfect, or very close to perfect, it is certainly not to be presumptuous, vain, or self-absorbed, but simply because we are proud of our long, hard, complicated work, which is always collective, and always will be. We are also realists and know how to evaluate our system, comparing it to everything that has existed, and what currently exists, and there is nothing more fair, just, honest, sincere, real, functional, orderly, organized, and secure, than DirectDemocracyS. There is nothing more complete, and more detailed. So we are not exaggerating in calling ourselves the best system and the best political force in the history of humanity. We created it for this purpose, not for financial gain or power, which we share with anyone who joins us—and, we repeat, anyone can join us, so we share all the power, literally, potentially with everyone in the world. But some say we're too closed a system because we have very protective security measures, for the good of the system, of those who are part of it, and of everyone else. Our work is too important to risk having people try to boycott us.

Our ideology was created by brilliant minds, and by all our official members, taking the very few positive parts of all ideologies past and present, eliminating every negative part. So we ask you: aren't we ideologically perfect, or at least very close to perfect?

The tragicomic thing is that humans and machines are asking us today, at the end of April 2026: how many elections have you won? We wonder if those asking such questions are stupid or in bad faith. We've never participated in any elections, so, concretely, how many could we possibly have won? In our minds, we've set priorities, in this exact order: 1. Creating a complete and valid theory, the entire system; 2. Creating our platforms, with all the security measures, implementation rules, and all the necessary capabilities, with all the testing phases; 3. Continuing phases 1 and 2, welcoming the first users into our system and onto our platforms, through a natural selection process necessary to have the most suitable people with us to build a solid foundation for DirectDemocracyS. Continuing with Phases 1, 2, and 3, we arrive at Phase 4, the creation of our micro-groups in urban and rural areas, with up to 1,000 inhabitants. These will expand rapidly, with the creation of micro-groups by members at different boundaries, even overlapping ones, with the help of human bridges (members of two or more micro-groups). These micro-groups will also be our physical presence, not just on our platforms, in various geographic, territorial, administrative, and electoral areas. These micro-groups will soon begin their initial testing activities, even if fully functional, and will then be implemented worldwide. As the micro-groups grow and unite, they will create all our local structures, from the smallest to the largest, integrating with our existing national, continental, and international organizations, they will create our organizations everywhere.

Only then will our political representatives be selected locally in certain micro-groups, with national collaboration, management, and control, based on the implementing rules we have published. After the selection of political representatives, internal electoral campaigns will be conducted and our closed, online primary elections will be organized. Based on detailed rules and the results obtained, again from the smallest area up to the national level, our candidates will participate in electoral campaigns and actual elections, which will be Phase 5. The same method will be used, in an alternative manner, to avoid conflicts of interest, to select our official representatives, who will manage our entire system, with all our official members, at every geographical level. We clearly separate system management from political representation.

Phase 6 will be the one in which the system can be criticized and judged based on the concrete results achieved and the consequences of all our activities and all our decisions, for which we will assume full responsibility, individually, as a group, and as a system.

So avoid asking us for things that have yet to happen, and limit yourselves to criticizing us for what we've accomplished, and don't ask us for impossible things. At the right time, we'll be able to discuss everything, with the serenity and sense of responsibility that makes us unique and inimitable.

We're not frustrated, we don't care if we're too long and too complex, or even if we might not please everyone. That's not our goal; the world can change and improve, even just with the support of the vast majority of good, intelligent people, who are certainly the first who will have the right mindset, the ability, the will, and the expertise to understand our system, appreciating it and grasping its enormous potential, and its great responsibilities.

Not having won any elections so far is not a fault, people and intelligent machines understand this perfectly and evaluate us for what we are, comparing us with others, with everyone else, based on what we have achieved.

We conclude this short article with a significant detail. We're told that we're hiding some information, some identities, some real data, the exact number of our users (which anyone can check from the outside, and even contact via certain groups, to avoid direct interference), our internal groups (there are several hundred of them visible to everyone, including our visitors), and that we're not saying if and where we'll hold our first micro-test groups, which will expand rapidly (to avoid being boycotted). Would you also like to know our passwords and login details for our bank accounts? Why do you demand real data from us, knowing that our users, rightfully, can remain completely anonymous, and even invisible from the outside, and even from the inside? How dare you ask such questions? And then, to evaluate the validity of our system, what does it matter if we're few, quite a few, many, or the entire world's population? What does popularity and initial consensus have to do with the value of our work? We want to be criticized and judged on what you know, not on what we don't tell you. Certain information requires certain requirements to be known, to protect our system, everyone who is part of it, and everyone who comes into contact with us. It's strange that you don't have similar expectations of other systems; you value them based on trust and popularity. A bit like those who tell us: if DirectDemocracyS is as hugely successful as expected, and very likely, we will witness the dictatorship of the majority over the minority. As if, in traditional, old, and failing systems, the majority that wins elections doesn't govern and make laws over the minority that loses them. Do a little math with the abstention rate in certain countries, and the majority bonuses, which in many cases allow those who get less than half the votes—less than half of all voters—to govern and make laws. In those cases: it's not the dictatorship of the majority over the minority, but rather the dictatorship of the minority over the majority, which, if I may, is even worse. Furthermore, we have internal rules that efficiently prevent any possible dictatorship, with property rights and shared leadership, and with very high quorums, more than half, even 65%, 75%, 85%, 95%, up to unanimity, to approve fundamental rules.

We can't forget those who, upon seeing DirectDemocracyS, asked us at the beginning: who's behind it? And we've always told the truth: we'll tell you who's behind it, if you'll also tell us who 's behind your traditional political party. And then, out of pity, we said that behind DirectDemocracyS are all those who are also in front, meaning anyone who joins us. We are a collective project.

This isn't a rant, it's not a criticism of humans and machines, it's the truth and reality. We've made it public, hoping we won't have to constantly revisit certain topics, but if necessary, we will, even with more detail, because we are truly long, complicated, and repetitive, and we are by necessity.

Long live DirectDemocracyS and those who have the patience to study us, with the right mindset!

--- CONCLUSION ---
The system is internally coherent, but highly demanding. Criticisms and misunderstandings are inevitable and structural.

To function optimally, the system requires highly engaged users, and believe us, it's worth it to be directly involved, regularly, practically daily, in the management of our system and, if we win elections, in the various institutions, governing, making rules and laws, in the common interest. Those who lack the time, desire, or opportunity can occasionally delegate various decisions to others, temporarily, and can resume their role at any time.

Misinterpretations aren't just mistakes: they're natural effects of complexity.
The model is a voluntary ecosystem, not an imposed global system.

The complexity and attention to every detail through implementation rules, even during various activities, allows us to predict, evaluate, verify, and take all necessary measures to manage human unpredictability.

If you're wondering whether DirectDemocracyS really works, and whether we can be trusted, there's only one way to find out: join us, manage us, and see for yourself that things are actually done internally as we say they are, and as they appear from the outside.

For those wondering: is DirectDemocracyS really better, fairer, more just, and more secure than all other systems? Our answer is simple, and it's another question. Could we all, together, do worse than those who came before us? Any change that improves the various situations is worth attempting and implementing.

We don't have to please everyone right away; we just need the most compatible, kind, intelligent, and competent people to understand the enormous potential we all have together if we implement DirectDemocracyS everywhere in the world.

It's unlikely anyone will be able to copy us because they need our platforms (which cost a lot of money), they need our human and technological teams, which you can never replace, and they need our willingness to share the power to decide with anyone who joins us, knowing how to prevent infiltration by any lobbies, and knowing how to prevent any internal struggle, simply by applying our rules, which, being shared, must be respected by everyone.

Everything we do in a certain way is the result of collective work and decisions. It has numerous implementing rules that resolve most mistakes, and they aren't just ways to complicate our lives. For every issue and to know our official positions on practically everything, you just need to use logic, common sense, research, truth, reality, consistency, and mutual respect. If there are problems and mistakes, we will address and resolve them together, with intelligence, ingenuity, and, if necessary, with pioneering and radical solutions, decided upon together. If there are the wrong people, in the wrong place, we will always be able to help them, even by bringing in competent and suitable people, or, if necessary, remove and replace them.

If you're wondering what's more important, the system, or those who manage, control, and compose it, our answer is simple: the common good and interest of all, both internally and externally, is our priority. Furthermore, the system exists thanks to everyone who is part of it, and it's designed to do no harm, knowing how to repair itself, and even slow down, or even stop, any dictatorial or other dangerous drifts for humanity.

Don't believe us? Check it out and you'll agree.