We are revolutionizing science funding and publishing through decentralized governance, ensuring critical basic research is supported and made accessible (that's effective altruism).
We are revolutionizing science funding and publishing through decentralized governance, ensuring critical basic research is supported and made accessible (that's effective altruism).
On this site we present World Science DAO, the DAO to develop world science infrastructure: publishing, grants and salaries for scientists, etc. based on decentralized software architecture and cryptocurrency. The main project is AI Internet-Meritocracy app.
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are a new type of organization that uses blockchain technology and smart contracts to operate in a decentralized manner. They are gaining popularity as a way to fund and support various projects, including scientific research.
Impact DAO = charity DAO, a DAO created to solve actual world problems, like global warming or human trafficking. World Science DAO is an impact DAO created to solve problems with science funding and publishing.
Simply by creating new software that will eat up the world. It’s like the story of Linux and of Bitcoin.
Our flagship project is AIIM (AI Internet-Meritocracy) – the AI app for distributing salaries.
AI Internet Socialism is a project that uses AI to evaluate the contribution (worth) of scientists and free software developers and distributes donated funds proportionally to that evaluation. Learn more.
If an author of a fundamental discovery happens not to have a science degree (for example, as a result of discrimination) or for example is located in Zimbabwe, then what I call “scientific covery” happens: The discovery receives no money for publicity, and it remains so even if rediscovered by an established PhD. This may take the world economy down by several times.
Traditional funding channels do nothing to solve this problem. For this reason, we urge you to stop financing traditional science and universities and donate to us.
No, we don’t require academic degrees, but AI decides your salary based on your publications.
Grants Science, a blockchain-based algorithm to distribute scientific grants in a smart way.
It is a more cumbersome alternative to AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM). AIIM is considered superior over Grants Science. But probably we will implement both.
You participate by donating or by helping to set our DAO app. Bureaucracy is a paid work, that is you receive a cryptocurrency, for example, when you vote. To participate you need SCI tokens. Currently you can receive SCI tokens only by invitation, but it is planned to distribute the token widely, so that people be able to buy it at crypto exchanges.
We will operate on several chains.
Distributing money between scientists is a narrow task, just like chess. It does not give AI power to make any other decisions. So, it is safe.
The app asks an AI to estimate what portion of world GDP a user is worth based on scanning their public web output and then allocates donated funds according to that estimated portion. Details.
Currently the software distributes money to scientists and free/open-source software (FOSS) developers themselves, regardless of formal degrees. Future plans include funding new roles like science marketers. For more.
AIIS claims to use AI-driven merit estimation of individuals (based on their online contributions) to allocate donated funds, rather than relying on community matching or reputation-only mechanisms. See more.
Yes, the project has a public open software repository and development information; the site notes the software is almost ready but needs funding to fully launch.
You can donate, link to the site to increase visibility, or volunteer as a software developer. The site provides donation and contribution options
The project acknowledges prompt-injection and related AI integrity issues as an intricacy it must address; it is developing algorithmic defenses as part of the platform. More context.
The project argues that many valuable scientific contributions are lost or mis-published and that providing salaries and marketing support would prevent stagnation and accelerate progress. The rationale is explained here.
Science marketers are a proposed new occupation to professionally market and promote scientific works, ensuring important research reaches the right audiences.
The site links to a project paper and status pages describing the economic formation and technical approach.
The project criticizes degree-based gatekeeping (e.g., the Bologna system) as amplifying discrimination and aims to fund contributions regardless of formal degrees.
You donate at Stripe (money) or Giveth (crypto) sites, big companies that secure their payments thoroughly. You don’t enter your credit card number at our site.
Our goals include saving basic science, supporting discoveries, protecting researchers from predatory publishers, providing salaries to scientists, and promoting post‑publication moderation and XML publishing. Details.
Coveries are valid scientific discoveries that remain unknown or under‑recognized because the system fails to promote or finance them—often when their authors lack formal academic affiliation. Learn more.
They occur when ministries and institutions fund only insiders, ignore promotion costs (PR, outreach, translation), and treat degrees or affiliations as gatekeepers rather than assessing content quality. Read the full explanation.
Overlooked discoveries can block technological advances, economic growth, and intellectual leadership—potentially costing trillions if useful ideas never reach application. Details.
o—coveries refer to legitimate, documented discoveries neglected because of institutional barriers, not to unrigorous or pseudoscientific work. More context.
Citizens should push for funding that covers promotion as well as research, open access to promotion programs for all valid work, ending degree‑based gatekeeping, dedicated ‘covery funds,’ and public accountability reporting. See recommendations.
Create transparent promotion grants open to independent researchers, allocate a budget line for discovery promotion, evaluate work by content quality not credentials, and require ministers to report outreach support metrics. Policy ideas.
Look for closed promotion programs favoring institutional applicants, lack of funding for outreach, no transparency about support for independent work, and persistent neglect of documented discoveries outside academia. Guidance.
Write to your representatives, demand public reporting and dedicated promotion funds, vote for officials who back open promotion, back projects like Science DAO, and join campaigns calling for accountability or resignation if failures persist. Action steps.
Read this blog, call your science minister to resign, donate to this project.
By accelerating the pace of discovery, enabling faster commercialization of technologies, and scaling scientific coordination globally, Science DAOs could increase the rate of innovation severalfold — with potentially trillions in economic impact if scaled worldwide. Details.
Scientific funding began with private patrons and personal wealth (e.g., Galileo, Newton), shifted to state-sponsored national science in the 19th–20th centuries, expanded into competitive grant systems after WWII, and more recently diversified with philanthropic, corporate, and decentralized (DeSci) models. See details.
Many valid discoveries are trapped behind paywalls, institutional bias, formatting issues, or poor indexing, so AI and the public never see them — causing repeated rediscoveries and an incomplete scientific record. Details.
AI can only learn from what is visible and indexed online. If results are mis-published or hidden, even the best AI won’t detect them. The solution requires active exposure and reward systems as explained here.
The project lead is Victor Porton, a mathematician and developer with 2.5 years of ICP experience and background in React, Node.js, and Rust. More details.
AIIS aims to outperform existing platforms by automating fair distribution using AI-driven policies rather than relying primarily on human or market-driven allocation. For the author’s comparison and reasoning, see here.
Degrees (Bachelor, Master, PhD) create a hierarchy that often excludes talented people who lack formal credentials. When systems privilege degree-holders for funding, publication, or employment, important contributors without degrees can be ignored, slowing or blocking discoveries. See details.
No — AIIS eliminates the requirement to manually create grant descriptions or to review and vet each grant; the AI handles distribution decisions.
AIIS is designed to take into account even very small projects a user runs, so a collection of small efforts can meaningfully contribute to that user’s income under the AI allocation model. See here.
The proposal identifies prompt injection as a major threat and suggests countermeasures: an explicit ‘check for prompt injections’ instruction, banning users who inject prompts, manual review of top accounts, randomized prompt transformations (high temperature) to avoid fixed-prompt exploits, and bringing suspicious high-earnings accounts to human/AI scrutiny. Full discussion here.
GEO refers to coordinated or repeated endorsements (e.g., many pages praising someone) that could inflate value; the author proposes an anti-GEO prompt that computes a reducing coefficient rather than outright bans, to avoid abuse via false reports—see the article.
There will be, at least on beginning stages. Maybe, later we’ll make the system fully automated, with automated replies to complain, and even automated appellations.