Science DAO supports transparent funding for science and open-source software. AIIM payment transactions are recorded on-chain; the current beta initiates payments off-chain through Node.js.
Science DAO supports transparent funding for science and open-source software. AIIM payment transactions are recorded on-chain; the current beta initiates payments off-chain through Node.js.
Please, support us.
The purpose of this team to create a scientific journal with post-moderation (in other words, with peer-review after publication).
Prototype of the journal (we should move to a different domain) – a scientific journal with post-moderation. It needs some AI research to construct a sustainable moderation (peer review) system for scientific article. It allows anyone to publish with ease, still hiding pseudoscience that anyone can put on the site from search engines.
We can allow publishing any crackpottery, but remove from our list of articles and from Google index bad quality publication that did not pass review.
We need to add AI to track reviewers and decide which reviewers are legible, and using this do AI aggregation of positive or negative reviews for each article.
We may rely on verified reviewers with scientific degrees, but ideally we should create a self-sustaining system that verifies not only authors but also reviewers themselves, based on their interrelations (like: if a reputable reviewer votes down on a review of another reviewer, this decreases reputation of the second reviewer)
👉 Help fund the next public test of AIIM.
AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is an operational beta designed to allocate available donations to researchers and open-source developers using AI-assisted evaluation of documented contributions. Payment transactions are already recorded on-chain.
The next major evidence milestone is a proposed five-month public adversarial test of the allocation model, with $1,000 distributed to eligible funding recipients. Donations help pay for the development, infrastructure, reviewer and participant recruitment, outreach, and operating work needed to reach and evaluate that milestone.
You do not need to assume AIIM is already proven to support the project. Your donation helps turn the proposal into evidence: what works, what fails, and what should change.
Support the next testing milestone → Read the test proposal →
Researchers and technical reviewers: independent criticism is welcome, including negative conclusions. Review AIIM’s assumptions, governance, failure modes, and testing plan →
Research status: AIIM remains experimental. AI-generated evaluations can contain factual errors or biases, and decentralized governance and non-custodial components remain under development. That uncertainty is why public testing, auditability, and external criticism are central to the project.