The closest of Hare's Nobel-laureate mentorships — thirteen years, from a contradicted lecture to an investment in Consilient
This is Jonathan Hare's account, with its provenance shown. The person or organization named has not yet claimed or corrected it.
Nobel laureate in economics, 1997, with Robert Merton, for the method of valuing derivatives — the Black-Scholes equation, the first that allowed options to be systematically priced. When Jonathan Hare met him in January 1988 at MAC Research, later Cornerstone Research, Scholes had not merely done seminal work in the field; he had invented the discipline with a single equation.
The mentorship ran thirteen years, from that firm through Long-Term Capital Management and the Connecticut tax case to Oak Hill, where he invested in Consilient. His textbook with Mark Wolfson on global tax strategy was assimilated directly into the design of the entangled tokens and the QPN token platform. The Premium Multiple framework in the corpus extends his option-pricing result into forms of capital the original could not reach — an extension attempted because the original was argued with in person, not encountered in a textbook.
Each entry below carries its own provenance — the source, and how it was processed. That is the condition on which this graph can be extended by anyone without degrading.
The trail exists so that people who were there can reconstruct their own memories, recognize what they helped incubate, and add to or correct the record — or forward the few pages that belong to someone they know.
The whole firm was arrayed around Scholes in the main conference room, and Hare — twenty-two, three weeks in, having read Cox and Rubinstein and therefore thinking himself worthy of the discussion — contradicted him. The colleague assigned to watch over him tried to kick him under the table and was too short to reach. It was, by the room's reckoning, the first time anyone had contradicted Myron Scholes in a couple of decades. Scholes said: you know what, you're right.
On a deck in Greenwich in the spring, Scholes said privately what the fund was not saying publicly: that he felt he was being traveled around the world as a demo dolly for his Nobel Prize while the fund invested in markets it did not understand. Minerals in Russia. Do they have real markets there, or managed markets? Can we trust the pricing signals? I'm getting nervous. His recommendation was to exit the markets they did not understand — and, to keep the returns, add leverage in the well-regulated ones. They did. The precision of the models became the argument for the leverage that destroyed the fund.
The IRS sued over a structure Scholes had designed to minimize taxes. Hare watched from the gallery. Opposing counsel complimented the structure's brilliance, asked whether Scholes had received a bonus for it, whether it was his main work that year, and how large the bonus was. Scholes answered — and then realized, live, that the bonus exceeded the maximum possible profit on the hedged structure, which meant the structure could not have had a profit motive. His own precision was the exhibit against him.
The textbook Scholes wrote with Mark Wolfson — global tax strategy for multinationals — was assimilated whole into the design of the entangled tokens and the QPN token platform. The corpus's extension of his pricing framework is the same move at larger scale: once contribution is attributable, contingent claims on it become priceable by the logic that made financial contingent claims priceable in 1973.
After everything — the fund's collapse, the trial — the same old Myron, super cheerful. They hung out, had lunch, and he invested in Hare's idea at Consilient. Hare's summary in the source record is four words: I just love that guy.
There is no single root. This is one view of the graph, from this node — what you see depends on where you enter and what you are looking for.
Expert testimony, and where arguments learn to survive attack
Open →invested in Consilient throughThree rounds, a silver bullet, and the end of Hare's tenure
Open →fellow Nobel laureate in the same orbitVice Chairman of Consilient, and the introduction into Cisco
Open →This record is not biography attached to a technical claim. Each runs into the other: the experiences below produced the mechanisms, and the mechanisms are what those experiences turned out to require.
This page is the anecdote — the thing that draws you in. The explainers are where the mechanism is set out in full, with the problem it solves and the condition on which it fails.
The mechanism, set out in full with the condition that would defeat it.
Open the explainer →Consilient Innovators NetworkThe mechanism, set out in full with the condition that would defeat it.
Open the explainer →Quantum Adaptive Systems TheoryThe mechanism, set out in full with the condition that would defeat it.
Open the explainer →Quantum Adaptive Systems TheoryThe mechanism, set out in full with the condition that would defeat it.
Open the explainer →This entry is deliberately incomplete. The gaps below are the things only certain people can settle — and settling one is a contribution like any other: recorded, timestamped and attributed to whoever made it.
Correct anything wrong, add what only you know, or claim this entry as your own. Write to evidence@qpncatalyst.io and Jonathan directly (both are on the button) — a timestamped confirmation comes back with your submission attached, as your own independent record. No account, no permission, no institutional standing required.
Public contributions earn Publicity Premium; bringing others who were there earns Cascade Premium. Everything is valued retrospectively as outcomes verify, so nothing has to be priced up front.
Correct this entry → Add a story, photo or link → Browse the graph →