I think you'd need to replace the diamond / expensive jewelry thing with something that appeals to the younger generation. I am not in that generation so I am n

I think you'd need to replace the diamond / expensive jewelry thing with something that appeals to the younger generation. I am not in that generation so I am not sure what that would be, but here is an idea. The diamond idea is based on having something that resembles luxury, like yachts and expensive champagne. It was initial marketed on the idea that you only love someone if you sacrifice your salary for a month or two to buy a ring. We can keep that concept (because that'll be tough to change) but shift the object: Somehow we want to make all that kind of stuff look morally disgusting, i.e. private jets with CO2 emissions that help kill the planet and people with floods and fires, and rich snobs spending money on pearls when they could be donating to charity. Another 2008 crisis which will happen like clockwork would be a great wave to surf for getting momentum behind the idea. More homeless middle class and rich bankers will make people angry. The idea is to make luxury and opulence (but not necessary money) seem bad to the middle class, in the same way as advocating slavery would seem bad. Then the replacement could be a donation to the charity that the receiver of the engagement ring chooses. The ring could be a simple 18ct gold band or gold plated. It could be 3D printed from an unusual material. Doesn't matter that it costs $50 or whatever, it's now just a symbol, it could have imprinted on it the cause that was donated to. The $10M would be spent on seed funding for a company to sell this kind of product, because then it's profits can be reinvested in marketing it further, rather than the "1 superbowl ad" that someone else mentioned in jest.