"Ok, Gunsmith.Group, pitch me!"
We have evolved for too long without adequately addressing the existential threat of self-destruction. Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to trigger a global catastrophe. If you believe a nuclear war is unlikely, remember how unimaginable the war in Ukraine seemed before 2014. The reality is, one unstable leader could ignite global devastation. We urgently need technologies that can limit the use of these weapons, and blockchain provides a promising solution.
"So, you want to build a 'Blockchain switch for nuclear bombs'? How would that work technically?"
Imagine a control software for a nuclear weapon encoded on a cryptographically secure chip. To activate the system, you would need a special code. The code is divided into 193 parts—each part signed by one of the 193 member states of the United Nations. Each part would be a line of text, for example, "ACTIVATE_WEAPON," digitally signed using the private key of the respective country.
The chip would also store the public keys of all 193 UN member states. These public keys would be used to verify the signatures.
The weapon's activation probability would increase proportionally with the number of valid signatures collected. For instance, if fewer than 10 countries support activation (like during russia’s invasion of Ukraine), the probability of successful activation would remain around 5%.
In essence, this system could transform a UN vote into a powerful deterrent, effectively "deactivating" weapons without majority approval for some aggressive actions.
"Sounds interesting, maybe even technically feasible. But it’s ABSOLUTELY impossible. Weapons manufacturing is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Do you really think they’d agree to restrictions that cut sales and profits? How do you plan to implement your project?"
One of the fascinating things about life is what I call the "BS Rule." - you never know if something is Bull Shit or a Black Swan.
I’m not debating the likelihood of success or humanity’s future. Arms control is a huge, complex issue, and we know the industry won’t embrace limits that hurt profits.
Our project isn’t about revolutionizing the industry overnight. It’s a proof of concept developed for a hackathon, and our main goal is feedback. If this idea interests you or sparks ways to improve it, we’re all ears.
Practically, we want to start by solving immediate problems, like helping the Ukrainian army in its fight against russia. This is where we see the most urgent impact.
"Ok, I am a bit lost. Can you please explain as concisely as possible what problem you want to solve and how?"
Absolutely! Our current focus is on initiating large-scale decentralized production of the world’s best weaponry. We aim to empower the Ukrainian army in its fight against russia.
I see. Good luck with that. I have only one question - how is Ukraine's victory in the war related to weapon control through blockchain?
Great question! Consider Jeff Bezos in 1994: if he had jumped straight into “cloud hosting,” his journey would have been much harder. Instead, he launched an online bookstore, made it the best, and then expanded to cloud hosting, when existing hosting solutions stop working for him.
We have a somewhat similar strategy, with the key difference being that the world’s best weaponry is already being produced in Ukraine. And our manufacturers already reached a point where existing solutions for weapon control are no longer sufficient.
Imagine a future where terrorists can use drones capable of taking down a passenger airplane. Or use drones with computer vision instead of conventional explosives. These technologies are no longer futuristic in Ukraine.
The need for a "cryptographic weapon switch" has long been clear
"Ok, give me please more details about weapon manufacturing in Ukraine"
Ukraine is leading a revolution in weapons production, pioneering the use of FPV kamikaze drones and employing FPV drones for air defense. Meanwhile, Russia has been using cheap Iranian drones and fiber-optic-guided kamikazes. However, none of this technology is truly new—every component has existed for years. The reason it wasn’t developed sooner lies in the rigid, outdated mindset of the arms industry, which has always been conservative and inefficient. Disruptive technologies thrive in such environments.
Since Russia’s 2022 invasion, many Ukrainian engineers, including IT specialists, have shifted to weapons development. In just three years of war, Ukraine has produced numerous prototypes. Yet, innovators face common obstacles:
- Government certification and sales take time and resources that most small developers don’t have.
- Volunteer organizations only buy finished products, not invest in production.
- For large volunteer funds to purchase weapons, soldiers need to request them—but this is tough with classified technology.
- PR and marketing are needed to build demand among soldiers.
- Once these campaigns start, media coverage follows, triggering excitement in Ukraine and panic in Russia.
- Russian leadership reacts to media panic by evolving quickly, either neutralizing or cloning Ukrainian innovations.
For example, Ukraine has used FPV air defense drones since 2023, but when developers made their work public in august 2024, it spurred Russia to adapt and create their own versions in september 2024. Why did this happen only after media attention, despite the technology being in use for a year?
Russia's military communication is broken. Frontline information rarely reaches the top, and inconvenient truths are filtered out. However, public noise forced their hand, pushing resources toward countering Ukrainian innovation.
Now, imagine Ukraine has prototypes of weapons that could be the next game-changer in the war—possibly leading to victory within three years. The reason you haven’t heard about it? Developers are avoiding publicity to delay Russia’s response.
The challenge? These innovators need support to scale their work, and that’s where we come in.
"Got it. You aim to change the weapons manufacturing market but recognize that current manufacturers may not collaborate with you. So, you plan to work with young, promising teams and grow together?"
Spot on!
Imagine you’re a weapons developer. You’ve tested a few prototypes in a local military unit under strict secrecy. Your solution is much cheaper than market alternatives, and with some funding, you could scale production almost endlessly using civilian components.
These are your strengths.
However, 99% small weapon manufacturers like you face common challenges:
- You know how to improve your prototype, but mass production—thousands of units a day—seems daunting. Instead, you’re stuck in endless tweaks, delaying full-scale manufacturing.
- Your savings are long gone. You’re relying on small donations and local volunteers, but their financial support is extremely limited.
- You’ve heard stories of how "a friend of a friend" lost a small drone factory or lab to a Shahed strike, or worse, received "recognition" from the russians in the form of a ballistic missile. After three years of war, you’ve become understandably paranoid and highly resistant to any suggestions to "step out of the shadows."
In this state, you’re limited to small-scale production, making only a minor impact on the war effort.
Hm.. I see. So, the choice is - remain hidden and have no impact due to lack of resources, OR go public and risk having weapons cloned by russia. Right?
Exactly.
Ukraine faces a challenge: funds are ready to buy weapons, investors want to develop them, and engineers have prototypes. Yet, these groups struggle to collaborate.
Funds need transparency to raise more money, while engineers need confidentiality and purchase guarantees to scale production.
At this hackathon, we created a new model:
Engineers can post basic public specs like:
We may produce FPV air defense drones, weight !CLASSIFIED!, max speed !CLASSIFIED!, range !CLASSIFIED!, price !CLASSIFIED!.
And add an encrypted version with full details for the fund to review.
Once they agree, both sides sign a contract. If one side breaches, the other can reveal the full terms publicly.
Sounds interesting, but how do you handle the legal consequences of such agreements?
There won’t be legal consequences for breaches.
In traditional contracts, a lot of time is spent on negotiations, yet they still don't fully prevent fraud, and it's often hard to determine who’s at fault.
Our model simplifies the process—easy to sign, easy to track. Instead of legal penalties, reputational risks take center stage. For large funds, reputation matters just as much as legal protection, giving everyone a reliable way to plan ahead.
Log in or sign up for Devpost to join the conversation.