The Constitution of the Italian Republic and The Constitution Of The Republic of Poland have been interesting to read. Reading about the ways the Knesset and Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Riksdag work has also been interesting. I’m sure the constitution of Germany is interesting too, but it uses a structure that is less similar to the others I’ve researched recently (elected representatives of the states are involved in choosing federal representatives, whereas in other places local representatives have much less influence on country-wide elections).

It’s also interesting to see who is the commander in chief of the armed forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief

In general, I find it hard to design fundamental social institutions (constitutions), but I expect that someone will find a way to improve those that we already have.

In particular, I would not have come up with the Constitution of the Italian Republic if I was working in isolation, but I haven’t noticed any major flaws with it (at least for periods of peace: the election of the president requires participation from every region, so if one was occupied by a foreign power such that it could not participate in an election it might be impossible to elect a president). One thought I had is that it might be good to limit the president’s ability to dissolve parliament, like limiting that power to cases where the parliament has had a significant amount of time to produce a budget but hasn’t actually done so (as is the situation for Poland), to avoid situations where the president says they dissolved the parliament but the parliament says they impeached the president before being dissolved.

Some similarities I’ve found

Of the states I referred to, there are some interesting similarities I’ve noticed.

• If there are two legislative bodies, the more populous one has significantly more influence compared to the other.
• The head of government and the head of state are different people. The head of government is a position that probably doesn’t have a set term limit and is occupied by someone appointed by the legislature (this is usually called a “Prime Minister”). The head of state is a president or a monarch (and, for a president, there is a set term limit). Often, the consent of the head of state is required in order to appoint a head of government (but this is not true for the Kingdom of Sweden). The head of government actually handles most of the powers of governing, while the head of state provides continuity during the periods when there is no head of government and/or before an elected parliament has convened for the first time.
• The head of state can usually dissolve the legislature (and usually force the removal of the head of government) (but not for the Riksdag of the Kingdom of Sweden, and only in certain circumstances for Poland) in order to have new elections. This might be useful if a legislative body is failing to address critical business due to conflicts between representatives, by allowing voters to elect different people that might actually be able to accomplish more useful things. In comparison, I consider it to be unlikely that any representative or senator in the USA can be removed except by a vote of the legislative body itself: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/30455/how-can-a-senator-be-removed-from-office-during-a-term-for-medical-reasons https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/How-Do-I-Remove-a-REpresentative-from-Offfice
• Fundamental obligations and rights are similar. Consider “We call upon all those who will apply this Constitution for the good of the Third Republic to do so paying respect to the inherent dignity of the person, his or her right to freedom, the obligation of solidarity with others, and respect for these principles as the unshakeable foundation of the Republic of Poland.” for Poland, and for Italy “The Republic expects that the fundamental duties of political, economic and social solidarity be fulfilled.” and “All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions.” and “It is the duty of the Republic to remove those obstacles of an economic or social nature which constrain the freedom and equality of citizens, thereby impeding the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organisation of the country.”.

A similar concept is “a random ballot or random dictatorship”, which might meet at least one more favorable criterion.

I don’t know who would benefit from interacting with this.

Going from a Kraken fee of 0.16% to a Binance fee of 0.075% after discounts (while assuming that depositing money one has in a bank account will still work well and that there is no risk from legal liability or of an account being closed) would let one recoup a $250 fee after trading a value of at least $294,117 ($250/((0.16-0.075)/100)). If one is Canadian and would otherwise have to suffer a 0.5% fee, one could recoup a USD 250 fee after trading a value of at least USD 58,823.

Someone that has about $300,000 in a bank account that wanted to use all of it to buy cryptocurrency would probably be able to afford to become a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis or Saint Lucia or even Malta, so Palau is probably not actually targeting rich people.

Someone that is making about $300,000 worth of trades but isn’t rich is someone who trades a small value many times each year, and “the vast majority of day traders lose money”. This suggests that, for most people, this will be the final meaningful purchase they make before their net worth declines rapidly. However, anyone that does end up profiting might be inclined to spend more money in Palau (whereas people who go broke won’t even be able to afford to stay in Palau and so probably won’t be able to cause problems in Palau), so Palau might end up profiting from people who lose money and people who gain money.

I happen to have been asked about this many months ago, since at least one person was visiting cryptocurrency meetup events in order to advertise this “residency card”.

The “substantial presence test” is more complicated than you might have thought: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/substantial-presence-test

If you spent a full 210 days (30 days from a visa on arrival followed by 2 consecutive 90-day extensions) each year in Palau, but spent the remainder of every year in the USA, you would be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least “183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that”. Specifically, the “count” would be 232.5 (instead of 465 since days in earlier years are counted as 1/3 or 1/6), which is at least 183.

It seems the easiest way to avoid being considered a United States resident for tax purposes from meeting the substantial presence test is to not be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least 31 days during the current year. If you wanted to do that, there are many places where most United States citizens are already allowed to stay for “365 days” or “1 year” or “Unlimited”, notably including Palau, as well as Marshall Islands and Albania and other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_United_States_citizens

This reminds me of how “civil marriages” started happening in France: https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?si=gRfdgFoeRvDEQ658&t=973 https://youtu.be/xD7MJcxQzKU?si=32-fXp928SdiGq0e&t=718

Regarding “restrictions”:

In at least some jurisdictions, the process of getting married involves “a marriage license”, and I think of a license as something that provides a privilege to and imposes an obligation upon someone, and potentially multiple privileges and/or obligations.

A license is “Freedom to deviate deliberately from normally applicable rules or practices (especially in behaviour or speech)”, so if there are any “restrictions” then they just apply by default, and people with a marriage license get to ignore some of them (in exchange for having some additional obligations/restrictions).

Note that might have legal consequences: if they expressed that in a court session it might be considered perjury or contempt of court. In general, people don’t like being mislead, so using sentences that are easy to misinterpret when you could have used a more straightforward sentence will probably lead to trouble.

Some consequences of “represent[ing] to others that the parties are married” can be considered quite negative: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-home-or-kids-together-but-couple-still-spouses-appeal-court-rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

I doubt that Joe Exotic has been married at any time in 2025

Exotic is gay and has referred to numerous partners as his husband despite them not being legally married.

It seems they were not married as of 1st November 2024

We filed our official papers for the marriage license from the prison yesterday, so we’re just waiting for approval. He has picked out December 12 as the date we’re hoping to get this approved by.