Why Are Tech Billionaires Building Their Own Private Cities?

At least a dozen well-capitalised technology founders — including figures linked to Praxis, Telosa, and the Prospera special economic zone in Honduras — have committed a combined estimated US$10 billion or more toward private city ventures over the past five years, according to reporting by the Financial Times and independent governance researchers. These are not speculative real-estate plays dressed up in civic language. They are structured attempts to create sovereign or quasi-sovereign jurisdictions where founders, not elected legislatures, write the rules governing taxation, land use, labour, and dispute resolution. For family office principals managing multigenerational capital across Asia-Pacific, the emergence of this asset class — if it can be called that — raises questions about opportunity, governance risk, and the long-term investability of structures that deliberately sidestep democratic accountability.

The reason this matters personally to principals of single-family offices and multi-family offices in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai is straightforward: several of these ventures are actively seeking anchor capital from ultra-high-net-worth investors in the region, framing participation as both an ideological statement and a high-return alternative allocation. Before any allocation committee considers a term sheet, a clear-eyed assessment of what these structures actually are — legally, politically, and reputationally — is essential.

"Private city ventures are not simply real-estate investments with libertarian branding. They are governance experiments with no track record, no regulatory backstop, and no exit mechanism that a conventional investor would recognise."

What Is a Private City and How Does It Work?

A private city is a jurisdiction — ranging from a special economic zone to a fully autonomous charter city — in which a private entity holds primary legislative, judicial, or administrative authority over a defined territory. The concept is not new: Hong Kong's pre-1997 structure, Singapore's founding model under the Economic Development Board, and the maquiladora zones of northern Mexico all drew on versions of the idea. What distinguishes the current wave is the explicit intent to replace democratic governance with corporate governance, and to generate investor returns from the jurisdiction itself rather than merely from economic activity within it.

Prospera, formally known as ZEDE (Zona de Empleo y Desarrollo Económico) in Honduras, is perhaps the most advanced example. Established under a 2013 Honduran constitutional amendment and developed by US entrepreneur Erick Brimen, Prospera charged residents and businesses a governance fee in lieu of conventional taxes, operated its own arbitration system, and attracted investment from venture capital funds including Pronomos Capital, which counts Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen among its backers. Honduras revoked the ZEDE law in 2022, triggering an international arbitration claim by Próspera Inc. for approximately US$10.8 billion in damages — a figure that illustrates both the scale of capital committed and the political fragility of the model. Praxis, a newer venture backed by technology investors, is seeking a coastal territory in an undisclosed nation to build a city from scratch, with a target population of 10,000 residents within a decade.

Telosa, conceived by former Walmart e-commerce chief Marc Lore, proposes a US$400 billion city in the American Southwest built around a concept called "equitism" — a portmanteau of equity and capitalism in which land value appreciation is collectively owned. Each of these projects uses a different legal wrapper, but all share the structural feature of concentrating governance authority in private hands, creating what governance scholars at the Overseas Development Institute describe as a "democratic deficit by design."

How Should Family Offices Evaluate Private City Investments as an Alternative Allocation?

Family offices considering exposure to private city ventures should apply the same governance diligence framework used for direct private equity or infrastructure co-investments, while adding a sovereign-risk overlay that most allocation teams are not currently equipped to run. The core challenge is that standard due diligence tools — audited financials, comparable transaction multiples, regulatory filings — either do not exist or are not publicly accessible for most private city projects. The investable thesis typically rests on projected land value appreciation, governance fee revenue, and eventual exit to a sovereign or municipal buyer, none of which has been demonstrated at scale.

For principals operating through Singapore Variable Capital Company (VCC) structures, Hong Kong Open-ended Fund Company (OFC) vehicles, or DIFC-registered family office entities, the compliance implications are also non-trivial. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) in Hong Kong, and the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) within the DIFC all require family offices to maintain adequate risk management frameworks for alternative allocations. An investment in a private city venture — particularly one subject to active international arbitration, as in the Prospera case — could trigger disclosure obligations, beneficial ownership reporting requirements, or reputational risk assessments under existing frameworks.

1. Jurisdiction risk: The host government can revoke enabling legislation, as Honduras demonstrated in 2022, leaving investors exposed to lengthy and uncertain arbitration processes.
2. Liquidity risk: There is no secondary market for private city equity. Exit depends entirely on the project reaching a scale at which a sovereign, municipal, or institutional buyer exists.
3. Governance concentration: Decision-making authority rests with a small founder group, with no independent board oversight, no shareholder vote mechanism, and no regulatory equivalent to MAS or SFC supervision.
4. Reputational risk: Association with projects that explicitly frame themselves as alternatives to democratic governance may create stakeholder friction for family offices with philanthropic programmes or ESG commitments.
5. Regulatory arbitrage risk: Structures designed to circumvent regulation in one jurisdiction may attract regulatory scrutiny in the jurisdictions where the capital originates.

Are Tech Founders Ideological Libertarians or Opportunistic Capital Allocators?

The honest answer is that the motivations are mixed, and principals should be sceptical of both the libertarian framing and the purely financial one. The libertarian narrative — that private cities represent a principled escape from regulatory overreach and failing democratic institutions — is intellectually coherent but empirically thin. Most private city founders have benefited enormously from the public infrastructure, rule of law, and educated workforces that democratic states provide, and their ventures typically seek legal protection from those same states through international arbitration treaties when things go wrong, as the Prospera case illustrates with its US$10.8 billion claim filed under the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).

The opportunistic reading is more persuasive: founders and their backers identified a structural arbitrage between the cost of governance in developing-nation host countries and the willingness of globally mobile capital and talent to pay a premium for predictable, low-tax, English-language jurisdictions. That arbitrage is real, but it is not unique to private cities — it is also the founding logic of Singapore, Dubai, and the Cayman Islands, all of which achieved their status through negotiated arrangements with sovereign governments rather than by attempting to replace them. The difference is that Singapore's Economic Development Board and Dubai's DIFC operate within internationally recognised sovereign frameworks, providing the legal certainty that private city ventures structurally cannot.

What Are the Strategic Implications for Asia-Pacific Family Office Principals?

The private city movement is a signal worth monitoring even for principals who have no intention of allocating capital to it directly. It reflects a broader sentiment among technology wealth — particularly in the United States — that existing jurisdictions are inadequate for the next generation of economic organisation. That sentiment is driving capital toward alternative governance structures, and some of that capital will inevitably flow through Asia-Pacific family offices as co-investment opportunities, fund commitments, or direct deal introductions.

Principals should also note that the most credible versions of the private city concept — Singapore's Jurong Innovation District, Saudi Arabia's NEOM, and Abu Dhabi's Masdar City — are state-backed projects that use private-sector execution within sovereign frameworks. NEOM alone has a stated budget of US$500 billion and is backed by the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, giving it a sovereign guarantee that no founder-led private city can replicate. For family offices seeking exposure to the governance-innovation theme, these state-anchored special economic zones offer a more structurally sound entry point than founder-led ventures with no regulatory backstop.

What to Watch: Forward-Looking Indicators for This Space

Several developments in the next 12 to 24 months will clarify whether private city ventures represent a durable alternative asset class or a well-funded ideological experiment. The outcome of the Próspera Inc. arbitration claim against Honduras — currently proceeding under CAFTA-DR — will set a significant precedent for how international investment law treats private governance concessions. A ruling in Próspera's favour could encourage further investment; a ruling against could effectively close the model for the next decade. Praxis's ongoing negotiations with prospective host nations will also be closely watched: if a G20-adjacent jurisdiction agrees to host a private city, the risk profile changes materially. Finally, the MAS and SFC's evolving guidance on alternative asset disclosure — particularly the MAS's 2023 updates to the Variable Capital Companies Act framework — will determine how much compliance overhead Singapore and Hong Kong family offices face if they do choose to participate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a private city and how is it different from a special economic zone?

A private city is a jurisdiction in which a private entity holds primary governance authority, including legislative and judicial functions, over a defined territory. A special economic zone (SEZ) such as Singapore's Jurong Innovation District or the DIFC in Dubai operates within a sovereign legal framework, with the host government retaining ultimate authority. The key distinction is that SEZs offer regulatory flexibility within a sovereign backstop, while private cities attempt to replace sovereign authority entirely — creating a fundamentally different and higher risk profile for investors.

How does the Próspera arbitration case affect family office investment decisions?

Próspera Inc. filed an international arbitration claim of approximately US$10.8 billion against the government of Honduras after the country revoked the ZEDE law enabling its private city in 2022. The case is proceeding under CAFTA-DR and is being closely watched by governance scholars and investment lawyers. For family offices, the case illustrates that even well-structured private city investments are exposed to unilateral host-government action, and that the arbitration remedy — while potentially large — is slow, uncertain, and reputationally complex.

Can a Singapore VCC or Hong Kong OFC hold an investment in a private city venture?

A Singapore Variable Capital Company (VCC) is a corporate structure regulated by the MAS that allows multiple sub-funds under a single legal entity, commonly used by family offices for alternative allocations. A Hong Kong Open-ended Fund Company (OFC) is the equivalent structure regulated by the SFC. Both structures can theoretically hold illiquid alternative investments, but compliance officers should assess whether a private city investment triggers disclosure obligations under the respective frameworks, particularly given the reputational and political risk dimensions that MAS and SFC guidance increasingly require managers to document.

Which Asia-Pacific jurisdictions are most relevant to the private city investment theme?

Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai (via the DIFC) are the primary domiciles for Asia-Pacific family offices considering this theme. All three jurisdictions are themselves successful examples of governance innovation within sovereign frameworks — making them structurally better comparators for the private city concept than the founder-led ventures currently seeking capital. Principals in these jurisdictions should also monitor Saudi Arabia's NEOM and Indonesia's new capital Nusantara as state-backed alternatives that offer exposure to the governance-innovation theme with sovereign risk rather than founder risk.

🍾 Evaluating whisky casks as an alternative allocation? Whisky Cask Club works with family offices across APAC on structured cask portfolios.