This comparison outlines how AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) differs from traditional grant funding. Unlike conventional systems that rely on peer review committees and formal credentials, AIIM distributes funding algorithmically based on merit signals. The table below highlights structural differences in eligibility, funding logic, and support for science marketing.
| AIIM | Gitcoin | Giveth | Manifund | |
| Funded | science and free software | mainly, Ethereum | public and private goods | a picked-up set of public goods |
| Pays in | several cryptocurrencies | several cryptocurrencies | several cryptocurrencies | FIAT money |
| Distribution | AI | mainly, quadratic funding | mostly direct, some quadratic funding | direct and regranting |
| Grant writing | without | required | required | required |
| Small projects support | yes | bad | bad | bad |
| Fairness of distribution between projects | maximal | low | average | low |
| Wait for payout | ~week | months | immediately | weeks |
Help Turn AIIM’s Beta into Evidence
AIIM remains experimental. The next proposed milestone is a five-month public adversarial test, with $1,000 planned for distribution to eligible funding recipients. Donations support the work required to run and evaluate that test.
Fund the public test → Test proposal → Independent review →
AI-generated evaluations can contain factual errors or biases; decentralized governance and non-custodial components remain under development. Public testing, auditability, and external criticism remain part of the project.