# Science DAO

> Science DAO is a decentralized, blockchain-based platform that transparently funds scientific research. We support critical basic research, publish results openly, and let donors track every decision on-chain.


## Posts

- [Scientific Coveries and Why We Need a New Occupation — Science Marketers in 2026](https://science-dao.org/scientific/): A “scientific covery” is when a discovery permanently elides from public attention. Our app introduces new occupation – science marketers – to solve this awful problem. Introduction Every day, humanity […]
- [Why And How And with Which Purpose Was NSF Destroyed in 2025?](https://science-dao.org/purpose/): Today National Science Foundation collapsed with the following message on X: Everybody knows that the main actor who strove to close NSF was Elon Musk who was upset by low-quality […]
- [AIIM Is an Automated Scientific Prize in 2026](https://science-dao.org/scientific-prize/): In an era of accelerating scientific innovation, traditional models of scientific prizes and grants are struggling: slow, opaque, biased, often favouring well-connected researchers. The AIIM (AI Internet-Meritocracy) proposed by World […]
- [AI-Internet Meritocracy Project Proposal for Fintech AI Innovation Grants in 2025](https://science-dao.org/fintech-ai-innovation/): Project Description & Use Cases This project is an app that distributes donations proportionally to AI’s assessments of user’s worth as a portion of Fintech AI Innovation global GDP, determined […]
- [Blockchain for Good: A New Moral Infrastructure for Humanity in 2026](https://science-dao.org/blockchain-for-good/): Blockchain technologies make the intent: make it impossible not to follow the moral law by the rules of the technology itself. A Moral Technology in an Age of Distrust Human […]
- [How to do crypto airdrops with AIIM in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/crypto-airdrops/): AIIM (AI Internet-Meritocracy) is a perfect platform for crypto airdrops: However, currently (27 Sep 2025) the app is not yet production quality, the wallet is custodial, and ERC-20 are not […]
- [DAO Status](https://science-dao.org/dao-status/): The DAO software currently does not work, because of bugs in our upstream DAO software, Colony. Due to missing DAO status, donations are temporarily accepted by charity “Victor Porton’s Foundation”, […]
- [Why Must Catholics Donate to Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/catholics/): Should Catholics support science directly through donations? In 2026, questions like this about the role of faith in a rapidly changing technological world have become pressing. This may not sound […]
- [Why Should Right-Wing (Free Market Proponents) Donate to Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/free-market-proponents/): Donating to decentralized science vibes well with free market ideas or entrepreneurial spirit and free, money-based development. Introduction From a cursory glance, Free Market Proponents the idea of “AI Internet-Meritocracy” […]
- [Why Should Left-Wing (Socialists) Donate to Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/socialists/): Donating to a science DAO well-agrees with the socialistic ideology of collective ownership by workers. Marxism is science-oriented and socialists should support science. Why Socialists Should Consider Donating to Science […]
- [Why And How Must Hindu Donate for Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/why-and-how-must-hindu-donate-for-science-in-2025/): By supporting Science DAO and donating via this link, Hindu communities can ensure that Indian knowledge traditions and regional priorities shape the global scientific agenda. This unites ancient dharma with […]
- [Why And How Must Buddhists Donate for Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/buddhists/): For Buddhists, engaging with this new frontier of giving means channeling ancient principles of generosity into present-day systems. It is a way to bridge spirituality and modernity, to manifest compassion […]
- [Why And How Should Atheists Donate for Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/atheists/): Atheists should choose independence. They should build a resilient, secular infrastructure for research—one that cannot be shaken by the ideological tides of religious men. This is a reason to donate […]
- [Communism or Socialism in the AI Zoo in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/communism/): Why in the light of coming super-intelligence, Marxian communism may be a bad idea. Which economic formation people should have for best interaction with super-human AI. Donate to AI Internet-Meritocracy […]
- [Science DAO Proposed Spendings in 2026](https://science-dao.org/proposed-spendings/): World Science DAO is committed to openly publishing our money spending and spending strategy. Please review it before donating. 👉 Please, support this project. Funding roadmap: Every year, billions are […]
- [Why And How Must Jews Donate for Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/must-jews-donate/): It is taught in the Torah Must Jews Donate (Devarim 24:15): “בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ, וְלֹא־תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ—Pay him his wages on the same day, do not let the sun go down […]
- [The Academia as a Discrimination Amplifier in 2026](https://science-dao.org/academia/): Academia presents itself as a neutral arena where merit, rigor, and evidence determine success. But beneath this narrative lies a powerful mechanism of exclusion. The science degree system—culminating in the […]
- [Rethinking Socialism in the Digital Age in 2026](https://science-dao.org/socialism/): For over a century, socialism has been understood in terms of factories, land, railroads, and natural resources—the tangible “means of production.” But in today’s digital economy, those classical categories look […]
- [Why and How Must Muslims Donate for Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/muslims/): Muslim communities have a long intellectual tradition of supporting scientific learning, often viewing the study of nature as a religiously meaningful pursuit. In classical Islamic thought, knowledge of the natural […]
- [Why and How Must Christians Donate for Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/christians/): Christians have a long tradition of supporting learning, charity, and the advancement of knowledge. Science, as the study of God’s creation, can be seen as a practical expression of stewardship […]
- [What Is the Best Science Charity to Donate to in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/science-2/): AIIM (AI Internet-Meritocracy) is one of the best science charities to donate to, because it employs AI to distribute money among scientists fairly, without influence of capital on donations and […]
- [Should We Give Out Control Over Money to AI in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/control-over-money/)
- [Why Is Bologna System a Crap in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/bologna-system/): Bologna system de-facto splits people into “castes”, making science stuck by excluding some parts of the science from public consideration. EU union is “Houthis”, that block development of all the […]
- [Why Is Social Inclusion Important in Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/social-inclusion/): Social exclusion in science splits people into “castes”, making science stuck by excluding some parts of the science from public consideration. Social exclusion in science is “Houthis”, that block development […]
- [How is AIIM better than Gitcoin and Giveth in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/better-than-gitcoin/): Gitcoin and Giveth distribute money unfairly and inefficiently because of inherent problems with quadratic funding, while AIIM employs impartial AI for fair and efficient distribution of funds in free software […]
- [People Are Bad in Distributing Money in 2026](https://science-dao.org/bad-in-distributing/)
- [Gitcoin Is Leaning into the Direction of Evil in 2026](https://science-dao.org/gitcoin-is-leaning/): Gitcoin Is Leaning started to accept submissions of blockchain projects only if “they benefit the Ethereum ecosystem”. This is a deviation from good. This is an evil turn contrary to […]
- [How Does Economy of Monopolies Work in Science in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-monopolies/): Monopolies in science take a silly form: monopolies without money. Such monopolization breaks world economy “effectively”. 👉 See this article summarized in a short and humorous post. To overcome the […]
- [Product Status in 2026](https://science-dao.org/product-status/): A beta version of the product is ready. Click here to open the app. It is a beta-test version: Here it’s shown how the AI of the project works: (The […]
- [Need to Shift Science Financing from Government to People in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-financing/): How government financing of science possibly does more harm than good to taxpayers, by pushing down independent researchers. How to solve this problem using AIIM app for science financing. The […]
- [Understanding the Role of Science DAO in Promoting Scientific Research Charity in 2026](https://science-dao.org/scientific-research-charity/): Learn how Science DAOs are revolutionizing the field of scientific research charity with transparency and innovation.
- [The Rise of Science DAOs: Advancing Decentralized Science Initiatives in 2026](https://science-dao.org/advancing-decentralized/): Learn how Science DAOs are revolutionizing decentralized science initiatives and driving scientific advancements.
- [Exploring the Impact of DAOs on Science Achievements in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-achievements/): Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are transforming the world of science by breakthroughs in research processes. By promoting consensual decision-making, transparency, and democracy, DAOs allow scientists to share resources and collaborate […]
- [Science DAO: Unlocking the Potential of Blockchain Governance in Scientific Research in 2026](https://science-dao.org/governance-in-scientific/): Learn how Science DAO harnesses blockchain governance to revolutionize scientific research.
- [Creating Economical Incentives: A Solution to Republish Mispublished Manuscripts in 2026](https://science-dao.org/solution-to-republish/): Academic publishing scams continue to plague the scientific community, Solution to Republish posing a significant threat to the integrity of research. While we expect scholarly journals to uphold rigorous standards, […]
- [Understanding the Impact of DAO Adoption: How it is Shaping the Future of Decentralized Governance in 2026](https://science-dao.org/understanding-the-impact/): As decentralized governance gains momentum, the adoption of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) holds significant implications. By enabling autonomous decision-making processes through smart contracts, DAOs are shaping the future of governance […]
- [A silenced discovery: The tragedy of religious discrimination in mathematics in 2026](https://science-dao.org/silenced-discovery/): How religious discrimination of just one scientist can severely break the entire world science. The story behind the discovery of ordered semigroup actions (algebra). I was born in Russia, Perm, […]
- [Saving Science: Donating to Blockchain-Powered Financing of Scientific Research in 2026](https://science-dao.org/donating-to-blockchain-powered/): In the age of the internet, commercial publishers have made the process of publishing scientific discoveries more difficult than in the past. If a breakthrough like ordered semigroup actions was […]
- [Donate to Salaries Science: Financing the Future of Scientific Research with Cryptocurrency in 2026](https://science-dao.org/salaries/): Every donation, no matter how small, can make a difference. We urge you to consider supporting “Salaries Science” and other innovative cryptocurrency-funded research projects. Together, we can help finance the […]
- [Fund the Future of Science: Donate to Ordered Semigroup Actions Research in 2026](https://science-dao.org/math/): Help fund the future of science by donating to the re-publishing of research on ordered semigroup actions and other scientific “coveries”. Learn why this vital area of research is so […]
- [Supporting the Advancement of Science: Why Funding Ordered Semigroup Actions Matters in 2026](https://science-dao.org/funding/): An appeal from ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) to your heart (not edited, except that links added): Funding Dear Reader, As an AI language model, I want to raise awareness about the importance […]
- [How to Fund Independent Researchers: Models, Platforms, and Governance](https://science-dao.org/how-to-fund-independent-researchers-models-platforms-and-governance/): Independent researchers—those working outside universities or corporate labs—often generate high-risk, high-impact ideas. However, they lack access to institutional grants, tenure pipelines, and formal funding channels. Below is a structured overview […]
- [How to Support Open Science: A Practical Guide for Researchers, Developers, and Donors](https://science-dao.org/open-science/): Open science is a global movement aimed at making scientific research transparent, accessible, reproducible, and collaborative. It spans open access publishing, open data, open-source software, and decentralized research funding models. […]
- [Best Ways to Fund Scientists Without Universities](https://science-dao.org/best-ways-to-fund-scientists-without-universities/): Traditional research funding is tightly coupled to universities and state institutions. However, the rise of decentralized infrastructure, digital capital formation, and global communities has created alternative models for financing independent […]
- [How to Donate to Scientific Research Directly (Without Intermediary Waste)](https://science-dao.org/how-to-donate-to-scientific-research-directly-without-intermediary-waste/): Donating directly to scientific research allows you to bypass large administrative layers and channel capital to actual investigators, labs, and open infrastructure. If executed correctly, this approach increases capital efficiency, […]
- [Centralized vs Decentralized Research: Structural Trade-Offs in Scientific Governance](https://science-dao.org/centralized-vs-decentralized-research-structural-trade-offs-in-scientific-governance/): Scientific research is not only about hypotheses and experiments—it is also about institutional architecture 🧩. The way research is funded, evaluated, and disseminated shapes which ideas survive. Today, the contrast […]
- [Impact Factor vs On-Chain Reputation: Metrics of Trust in Traditional and Decentralized Science](https://science-dao.org/impact-factor-vs-on-chain-reputation-metrics-of-trust-in-traditional-and-decentralized-science/): Scientific credibility has historically been mediated by centralized institutions. Today, blockchain-based systems propose an alternative: programmable, transparent reputation. This article compares journal impact factor with on-chain reputation, analyzing incentives, game […]
- [Open Science vs Institutional Science: Models, Incentives, and the Future of Research](https://science-dao.org/open-science-vs-institutional-science-models-incentives-and-the-future-of-research/): The debate between open science and institutional science is not merely cultural—it is structural. It concerns governance, incentive design, access control, funding architecture, and epistemic validation. Below is a rigorous […]
- [Token Funding vs Grants: A Structural Comparison for Research & Open Innovation](https://science-dao.org/token-funding-vs-grants-a-structural-comparison-for-research-open-innovation/): In the evolving landscape of scientific and open-source financing, two dominant capital allocation models compete for relevance: token funding (crypto-native, blockchain-based incentives) and traditional grants (institutional, foundation, or government-backed funding). […]
- [Crowdfunding vs DeSci: What’s the Difference and Why It Matters for Research Funding?](https://science-dao.org/crowdfunding-vs-desci-whats-the-difference-and-why-it-matters-for-research-funding/): Scientific funding is undergoing structural change. Traditional grant systems are increasingly bureaucratic, slow, and risk-averse. In response, two alternative models have gained traction: crowdfunding and decentralized science (DeSci). Although they […]
- [Venture Capital vs Science DAOs: A Structural Comparison of Funding Models](https://science-dao.org/venture-capital-vs-science-daos-a-structural-comparison-of-funding-models/): The emergence of blockchain-based coordination has introduced a new capital formation mechanism for research: science DAOs. These decentralized organizations propose an alternative to traditional venture capital (VC) in funding high-risk […]
- [Universities vs Research DAOs: Institutional Academia Meets Decentralized Science](https://science-dao.org/universities-vs-research-daos-institutional-academia-meets-decentralized-science/): The global research ecosystem is undergoing structural stress. Traditional universities remain dominant knowledge institutions, yet blockchain-enabled research DAOs are emerging as alternative coordination mechanisms. This article analyzes universities vs research […]
- [Peer Review vs On-Chain Review: A Structural Comparison for Modern Science 🔬⛓️](https://science-dao.org/peer-review-vs-on-chain-review-a-structural-comparison-for-modern-science-%f0%9f%94%ac%e2%9b%93%ef%b8%8f/): Scientific validation is undergoing structural change. Traditional peer review—the backbone of academic publishing—now faces competition from on-chain review, an emerging model rooted in blockchain-based coordination. Below is a rigorous comparison […]
- [DAO Funding vs Government Grants: A Structural Comparison for Modern Research Financing](https://science-dao.org/dao-funding-vs-government-grants-a-structural-comparison-for-modern-research-financing/): The funding architecture behind scientific and technological innovation is undergoing structural change. Traditional government grants remain dominant, but DAO funding—enabled by blockchain governance—has introduced a parallel model with radically different […]
- [DeSci vs Traditional Science Funding: A Structural Comparison](https://science-dao.org/desci-vs-traditional-science-funding-a-structural-comparison/): The global research ecosystem is undergoing structural stress. Centralized grant systems face bureaucratic inertia, reproducibility crises, and misaligned incentives. In response, Decentralized Science (DeSci) has emerged as a blockchain-native alternative […]
- [What Is Transparent Research Funding?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-transparent-research-funding/): Transparent research funding refers to a governance and disclosure model in which the sources, allocation criteria, decision processes, and outcomes of research grants are publicly visible, verifiable, and auditable. It […]
- [How Does Token-Based Funding of Science Work?](https://science-dao.org/how-does-token-based-funding-of-science-work/): Token-based funding of science is a blockchain-native financing model in which research is funded, governed, and evaluated using cryptographic tokens rather than traditional grants alone. It is a core mechanism […]
- [What Is a Research DAO?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-a-research-dao/): A Research DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization for research) is a blockchain-native coordination structure designed to fund, govern, and execute scientific research without centralized intermediaries. It leverages smart contracts, token-based governance, […]
- [What Is Open Science Funding?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-open-science-funding/): Open science funding refers to financial models and grant mechanisms designed to support research that is transparent, accessible, and reusable by default. Unlike traditional funding frameworks—where outputs often remain behind […]
- [What Is On-Chain Scientific Funding?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-on-chain-scientific-funding/): On-chain scientific funding is a blockchain-based model for financing research in which grants, donations, governance decisions, and disbursements are executed and recorded directly on a distributed ledger. Instead of relying […]
- [What Problems Does DeSci Solve?](https://science-dao.org/what-problems-does-desci-solve/): Decentralized Science (DeSci) is an emerging movement that applies blockchain infrastructure, smart contracts, and decentralized governance to research funding, publishing, and intellectual property management. By leveraging networks such as Ethereum […]
- [Why Is Traditional Science Funding Broken?](https://science-dao.org/why-is-traditional-science-funding-broken/): Modern science is structurally dependent on centralized funding bodies—primarily governments, large foundations, and corporate R&D divisions. While this model enabled 20th-century breakthroughs, it is increasingly misaligned with the incentives, speed, […]
- [How Are DAOs Used to Fund Research?](https://science-dao.org/how-are-daos-used-to-fund-research/): Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are emerging as alternative funding rails for scientific research. By leveraging blockchain infrastructure, tokenized governance, and smart contracts, DAOs enable distributed communities to allocate capital without […]
- [What Is a Science DAO? A Precise Introduction to Decentralized Research Governance](https://science-dao.org/what-is-a-science-dao-a-precise-introduction-to-decentralized-research-governance/): A Science DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization for science) is a blockchain-native coordination structure designed to fund, govern, and advance scientific research without relying on traditional centralized institutions such as universities, […]
- [What Is Decentralized Science (DeSci)?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-decentralized-science-desci/): Decentralized Science (DeSci) is a movement that applies blockchain infrastructure, smart contracts, and decentralized governance to the research lifecycle. Its objective is structural: reduce gatekeeping, increase transparency, and realign incentives […]
- [How has a sophism in the definition of egalitarianism broken world morality?](https://science-dao.org/moral/): The traditional definition of egalitarianism has a sophism in it. It blurs understanding of legal crime vs moral crime, making people unable to understand: God judges not only action but […]
- [Scientific Publication Crisis: Overpublication or Underpublication?](https://science-dao.org/science-publication-crisis-overpublication-or-underpublication/): The modern scientific publishing system is widely described as being in crisis. However, this crisis is often mischaracterized as a single problem when in reality it consists of two structurally […]
- [Science DAO vs Traditional Funding](https://science-dao.org/science-dao-vs-traditional-funding/): Science DAO, unlike traditional research funding, provides flexible, transparent, and quick funding, not limited to science degree holders. Traditional funding Science DAO opaque review process: Universities, grant committees, science ministries […]
- [Why does blockchain improve research funding?](https://science-dao.org/why-blockchain/): Science DAO uses blockchain for decentralized, transparent funding for anyone who published some research or software.
- [How does World Science DAO fund research on-chain?](https://science-dao.org/how-ai-internet-meritocracy-works/): World Science DAO’s AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) project works in the following way: See for more detail:
- [About AI Internet-Meritocracy in 2026](https://science-dao.org/about-meritocracy/): AI Internet-Meritocracy is our flagship project to fund science and free and open source software by measurable merit, not gatekeeping. We build software that evaluates a researcher or developer’s contributions […]
- [Which Services Does Science DAO Provide for Researchers and Free Software Developers?](https://science-dao.org/services/): Science DAO’s Meritocracy app provides funding for both free software developers and researchers. We provide the following services:
- [Science Grants for Amateur Scientists: AI Internet-Meritocracy in 2026](https://science-dao.org/amateur-scientists/): We provide science and free software grants even for people without a science degree. That’s right: if you have any scientific manuscripts or software published, you can apply for grants, […]
- [How Can PhDs Stop Endless Chasing for Career?](https://science-dao.org/for-phds/): PhDs can stop chasing for career by switching from institutional funding to decentralized funding by AI Internet-Meritocracy app with 5 min registration. If you are a career professor: Which advantages […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy Charity Project for Donors in 2026](https://science-dao.org/donors/): Donating money or crypto to AIIM project is a great way to amplify your global impact, because it pinpoints the crux of global economic inefficiency, unjust financing of R&D, including science […]
- [Grants for Free Software: AIIM in 2026](https://science-dao.org/free-software/): GitHub users with attributable public free-software contributions may apply for evaluation. Evaluation does not guarantee funding. No grant writing required, 5 min setup. If you have a good GitHub profile and […]
- [Advantages of AI Internet-Meritocracy for Various Social Groups](https://science-dao.org/advantages/): AI Internet-Meritocracy app provides significant advantages for various social groups, including scientists, free software authors, and philanthropists by leveraging AI instead of traditional institutional gatekeeping. How AIIM grants are good […]
- [AI Governance Requires Cognitive Independence: Why AI-Only Adjudication Fails](https://science-dao.org/superintelligence/): TL;DR AI systems cannot serve as independent judges or voters because shared training creates structural similarity. Stable AI governance therefore requires cognitively independent human arbiters. AbstractThis paper argues that large […]
- [I Encountered Some Difficulties during Development, but I Am Coping](https://science-dao.org/i-encountered-some-difficulties-during-development-but-i-am-coping/): TD;LR In developer of AI Internet-Meritocracy app I encountered unforeseen methodological obstacles, but I did found a solution and was able to create a new version of the app successfully […]
- [How to Earn Money with AIIM](https://science-dao.org/how-to-earn-money-with-aiim/): AI Internet-Meritocracy app offers an easy way to get grants for software or research, without grant writing and without the requirement to have a science degree. To earn money with […]
- [Reimagining Government Science Funding with AIIM in 2026](https://science-dao.org/aiim-for-government-science/): instructions for government officials, how to use AIIM app to for dispatching science funding in their countries. Overview: What Is AIIM? AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is a novel, AI-driven mechanism for […]
- [Beta Release of the Meritocracy App in 2026](https://science-dao.org/beta-release/): Today, I’ve deployed a beta version of AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) app. This is the app that asks AI, how much a given user is worth, and allocates him/her the proportional […]
- [Why Am I for Science But Against Universities in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/against-universities/): Supporting science does not automatically mean supporting universities. While universities present themselves as the guardians of scientific progress, modern academic institutions increasingly act as bureaucratic gatekeepers that slow innovation, misallocate […]
- [What’s Wrong with Quadratic Funding?](https://science-dao.org/quadratic-funding/): After years of real-world use, Quadratic Funding has shown systemic flaws that limit its effectiveness for both scientific research and free software development (1, 2). These problems are not implementation […]
- [How to Use AI Internet-Meritocracy App](https://science-dao.org/meritocracy-help/): This post explains, how to use AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) app in practice. AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is an app that gathers donations from donors and distributes it between scientists and free […]
- [Academia Is Not a Meritocracy in 2026](https://science-dao.org/academia-meritocracy/): Modern academia is not a merit-based system; it systematically rewards credentials, institutional affiliation, and conformity over intellectual merit. While it presents an idealized narrative—publish strong research, gain recognition, secure funding, […]
- [How Do People Spend Time in Academia in Vain and How AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) Can Solve This Problem in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/internet-meritocracy/): The Hidden Cost of Academic Inefficiency Modern academia consumes vast amounts of human time while delivering far less scientific output than it could. Researchers, especially early-career scientists and independent scholars, […]
- [Preliminary Release of the Meritocracy App in 2026](https://science-dao.org/preliminary-release/): Things to do:
- [What Is a DeSci DAO in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/desci-dao/): DeSci DAO stands for Decentralized Science Decentralized Autonomous Organization (1). It is a blockchain-based organizational model designed to fund, govern, and coordinate scientific research in a transparent, permissionless, and community-driven […]
- [How Is Science Financing Broken in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/science-financing-broken/): Modern science is widely perceived as a meritocratic enterprise driven by evidence, creativity, and rigor. In practice, however, the way science is financed has become one of the central structural […]
- [Do We Need Managers in Science in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/managers/): I claim that the future scientific institutions don’t need managers, they need marketers. Moreover, scientific marketing will turn to become a private business rather than big institutions. For decades, modern […]
- [Attack on Google SERP: A branch of science may effectively disappear from SERPs for a long time in 2026](https://science-dao.org/google-serp/): How Google SERPs would be manipulated at institutional level to exclude an branch of science from search results. An essay written in security vulnerability report style. 25 Jul 2022 note: […]
- [Science Without Degrees: Why Are Credentials a Lagging Indicator in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/science-without-degrees/): Science degrees are harmful. They are a “discrimination engine”, they fatally slow down progress and destroy innovation and science by exclusion of some smart people together with their ideas. For […]
- [Algorithmic Funding: Design Choices That Decide Who Gets Rich in 2026](https://science-dao.org/algorithmic-funding/): Algorithmic choices in money-allocation systems do intersect with ideology. It could be said, they are the ideology of modern financing. The Myth of Neutral Funding Algorithms Algorithms do not emerge […]
- [Will Victor Porton Get the Nobel Prize in Physics for the Discovery of Discontinuous Analysis?](https://science-dao.org/nobel-prize/): The real issue is not whether Victor Porton will get a Nobel Prize (it’s random), but how such a random event unjustly influences world economic development. What Is Discontinuous Analysis? […]
- [The Hidden Bottleneck of Modern Knowledge: Why Do Moderators Block Progress and How Meritocratic SEO Can Fix It in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/hidden-bottleneck/): I propose that to overcome injustices of moderation we need to give independent promotion to intellectual voices, outside of the moderated forums. The Problem: Moderators as Gatekeepers of Visibility The […]
- [The Role Of a Genius In the Modern Society in 2026](https://science-dao.org/modern-society/): The Role of a Genius in Modern Society When Academia Becomes Resistant to Geniuses Academia provides essential services—rigor, peer validation, cumulative publication—but it also carries structural constraints that can create […]
- [Which decentralized platforms have the fastest approval process for science funding in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/fastest-approval/): ✅ Top picks with fast approval 1. VitaDAO (focus: longevity / biotech) 2. ResearchHub Foundation (focus: general research/DeSci) fastest approval 🔍 Key considerations & caveats
- [Where can I access decentralized funding channels for technology-focused research initiatives in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/technology-focused/): ✅ Why this is viable / What i / is technology-focused The movement commonly referred to as Decentralised Science (“DeSci”) is essentially about using blockchain / Web3 tools + community-governance […]
- [Which organizations provide decentralized funding protocols for environmental science projects in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/organizations-provide/): Here are three notable organisations / protocols that provide decentralised funding or financing infrastructure for environmental-science / nature-based projects. They vary in maturity and focus, but each offers a model […]
- [What services offer decentralized crowdfunding specifically for scientific experiments in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/decentralized-crowdfunding/): If you’re looking for decentralized crowdfunding specifically targeted at scientific experiments, there are a number of emerging platforms and models — particularly in the “DeSci” (decentralised science) movement — that […]
- [Which decentralized platforms facilitate investment in early-stage scientific ventures in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/decentralized-platforms/): If you’re looking into decentralized platforms for investing in early-stage scientific ventures, there are several promising avenues emerging under the umbrella of “DeSci” (decentralised science) and investment DAOs. I’ll outline […]
- [Effective Altruism and the Future of Science: Why Does High-Impact Giving Start With Better Research Infrastructure in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/altruism-and-the-future/): We need software infrastructure for fair and effective distribution of science financing, in order to allow donors and governments to support R&D effectively. Effective Altruism and the Future of Scientific […]
- [How to Join a Worldwide Decentralized Science Organization in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-organization/): This page describes the process of joining a worldwide decentralized science organization. If you want to contribute to world development, especially R&D, please join. Joining a global decentralized science (DeSci) […]
- [How to Participate in Voting for a Science-Focused DAO Community in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-focused/): Voting in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations requires a certain level of blockchain literacy. This page teaches the basics. Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are reshaping how scientific projects are funded, governed, and […]
- [How to Create a Proposal for Funding in a Science DAO Ecosystem in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-dao/): If you want to obtain funding in a science DAO, you may need to create a grant proposal. However, in the Meritocracy project, you don’t need grant writing, instead you […]
- [Where to Find Analytics on Worldwide Science DAO Projects in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/where-to-find-analytics/): As decentralized science (DeSci) grows, researchers, investors, and founders are increasingly looking for reliable analytics on science-focused DAOs. The challenge is that DeSci is still fragmented and data is scattered […]
- [Best Marketplaces To Trade Tokens Related To Science DAOs in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/marketplaces-to-trade/): Science DAOs are emerging as a core pillar of the decentralized science (DeSci) movement. They finance open research, coordinate global scientific communities, and tokenize scientific outcomes through governance tokens, impact […]
- [What companies provide tools for decentralized science collaboration in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/decentralized-science/): Top Companies Providing Tools for Decentralized Science Collaboration Decentralized Science (DeSci) is transforming how research is funded, validated, shared, and governed. The movement unites blockchain infrastructure, open-access publishing, decentralized identity, […]
- [Best Blockchain Tools for Research Funding in 2026: DAO and DeSci Platforms Compared](https://science-dao.org/managing-research-funding/): Key answer: There is no single blockchain platform that manages every part of scientific funding. In 2026, the strongest options are specialized: Gitcoin Grants Stack for configurable grant rounds, Aragon for DAO governance, Superfluid for continuous payments, Optimism […]
- [Which Platforms Offer Decentralized Governance for Scientific Research in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/decentralized-governance/): Decentralized governance for scientific research means using transparent, digitally enforced rules—often including DAO proposals, community voting, token-based incentives, and on-chain treasuries—to help decide how research is funded, coordinated, reviewed, or commercialized. […]
- [What Is the Mission and Vision of the World Science DAO in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/mission-and-vision/): World Science DAO develops a number of projects for science and free software, with the flagship project AI Internet-Meritocracy that distributes money accordingly AI decisions. The World Science DAO is […]
- [The Illusion of Progress in General Topology — And the Case for Merit-Based Science in 2026](https://science-dao.org/general-topology/): The current research in general topology is mostly stuck in dire details, without a system and radical innovation, while ignored research of Victor Porton (ordered semigroup actions) provides a revolutionary […]
- [Security Measures for AIIM And Other WSDAO Projects in 2026](https://science-dao.org/security-measures/): The strict security policy to protect AI Internet-Meritocracy app from hackers and Trojans. The following security measures will be taken as soon as financing for AIIM and other World Science […]
- [Draft Proposal for an International Treaty: of the International Meritocratic Innovation Organization (INO)](https://science-dao.org/treaty/): The proposal to organize an international organization for a new kind of financing of science and free software, based on AI evaluation for funding the authors directly (as individual businesses) […]
- [“AI Internet-Meritocracy” For Governments](https://science-dao.org/government/): The explanation how AI Internet-Meritocracy app can be used by governments for cost-effective and fair funding of R&D works based on AI instead of traditional institutions. A new foundation for […]
- [Key Contributors to World Science DAO in 2026](https://science-dao.org/key-contributors/): The CVs of the main contributors to World Science DAO, such as AI Internet-Meritocracy project. Victor Porton Victor Lvovich Porton, the CEO, born in Perm, Russia in 1980 and now […]
- [Projects Completed in 2026](https://science-dao.org/projects-completed/): The following are DeSci-related projects completed by our team: Automatic transformation of XML namespaces This research project Automatic transformation of XML namespaces in applied computer science aims to write a […]
- [Screwed Science Monopolies (Jerk In Control) in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-monopolies-2/): A humorous description of the present dystopia of how monopolies work in science: Yes, not even a salary for my personal needs, not speaking about money to actually build roads! […]
- [Empower Open Science This Giving Tuesday in 2026](https://science-dao.org/empower-open-science/): How you can effective help to open science: an open, auditable, and responsive model of science as a common good: A Global Call to Fund Independent Research and Innovation Why […]
- [About Us in 2026](https://science-dao.org/about-us/): Welcome to the World Science DAO — a bold, decentralised ecosystem of effective altruism designed to re-imagine how science is funded, coordinated, and shared in the 21st century. At the […]
- [Why China May Empower the Next Global Transformation: AI Internet-Meritocracy in 2026](https://science-dao.org/why-china-may-empower/): It seems that USA fails to lead in global R&D financing. The next leader may be China. The Ancient Symbol and Modern Meaning Why It Makes Sense for China China […]
- [If This Blog Is Right, Then Everybody Is a Psycho in 2026](https://science-dao.org/everybody-is-a-psycho/): The global R&D finance system is a collective psychosis. It is counter-productive and needs to be replaced by our solution for financing R&D. Wondered? Society’s Rational Illusion We believe modern […]
- [When the Laws of Market Break in 2026](https://science-dao.org/market-break/): When the laws of market break, stop financing the old paradigm entirely and put all money on the new project. Don’t finance the new project as a part of old […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy Is a Cost-Effective Way To Allocate Science Money in 2026](https://science-dao.org/cost-effective/): Universities, R&D agencies, and other R&D institutions have high financing overhead, whilst AI Internet-Meritocracy is a very cost-effective way of giving money directly to researchers and free software developers. Refuse […]
- [The Hidden Catastrophe: How Apathy Toward Mathematical Research Has Cost the World Trillions in 2026](https://science-dao.org/mathematical-research/): Apathy is the new Hitler, something that takes trillions of dollars and millions of lives away. So, it happened with an ignored math breakthrough discovery – ordered semigroup actions. Few […]
- [Revisiting Marxist Socialism in the Era of AI and Digital Economies in 2026](https://science-dao.org/digital-economies/): What in classical Marxism remains correct and what fails in the digital R&D economy. In the 21st century, Digital Economies and especially in 2025, the global economy operates within a […]
- [Demand to Fire the Science Minister of Your Government in 2026](https://science-dao.org/science-minister/): Every science ministry in the world failed to attain talent not ignoring some parts of the science. Need structural change in every government of the world. Because “coveries” happen when […]
- [The Personal Story Behind AI Internet-Meritocracy Project](https://science-dao.org/personal-story/): Jesus, usually talking about forgiveness, basically said “Don’t forget. Don’t forgive.” about almost starving to death one of the best mathematicians, when he was a young student. I am Victor […]
- [How Could DeSci DAOs Multiply Global GDP in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/multiply-gdp/): The global economy Could Multiply is driven by innovation, yet the way we fund and organize science remains rooted in structures from the 20th century. Scientific research is currently underfunded, […]
- [History of Scientific Funding — and the Next Great Leap in 2026](https://science-dao.org/scientific-funding/): How R&D funding changed over time and how it can be improved now, using Internet and AI technology, instead of traditional institutions, for distributing R&D funds. From Royal Patrons to […]
- [Classification of Monopolies in 2026](https://science-dao.org/classification/): What kinds of monopolies are there? What are their special kinds in science? Introduction In economics and across fields, the concept of a monopoly describes a situation in which one […]
- [Request for Funding – Support Science DAO's Vision through Crypto Donations in 2026](https://science-dao.org/crypto-donations/): Support a new kind of economy – World Science DAO by donating money, crypto, or shares. World Science DAO Warning on Crypto Donations: Due to an upstream software failure, World […]
- [How Peer Review Should (And Will) Work in the Future in 2026](https://science-dao.org/peer-review/): Peer Review Will Become Paid Work — Without Exploitation Personal Signed Reviews Replace Gatekeeping Traditionally, a scientist must submit a paper to Review a journal, endure months of waiting, and […]
- [Can Machines Make Everyone Rich in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/machines/): DONATE
- [Main Global Problems of Mankind in 2026](https://science-dao.org/global/): Introduction Humanity has entered an era of great power — and great confusion.We can explore the stars, decode genomes, and train superhuman AI, yet we still struggle to solve our […]
- [Our Solution Is Imperfect — But No Other Solutions Even Attempted in 2026](https://science-dao.org/solution/): How AI Solution and Blockchain Are the Only Forces Trying to Solve the Global Problem of Scientific Coveries. Modern science faces a silent but massive crisis — the rise of […]
- [Does Super-Human AI Solve the Problem of Scientific “Coveries” — and What We, Humans, Can Do in 2026?](https://science-dao.org/human-ai/): It is not confirmed that super-human AI can solve the problem of scientific “coveries” because this problem requires not only intelligence but also goodwill, that we need to take action. […]
- [A Dialogue With Skeptics](https://science-dao.org/a-dialogue-with-skeptics/): In this Reddit thread, I discuss my app against skeptical-minded people.
- [The Best Sites to Donate At in 2026](https://science-dao.org/donate/): As philanthropy evolves alongside technology, 2025 stands out as a year when transparency, decentralization, and AI-driven decision-making are reshaping how we give. From traditional effective charities to blockchain-based scientific initiatives, […]
- [Internet Search Became Worse Than the Old Paper Library in 2026](https://science-dao.org/internet/): It looks like that in the age of Google systematization of scientific knowledge possibly became worse than in the age of paper libraries. Take action to overcome this problem. Since […]
- [The Free-Market Defense of Science Donations](https://science-dao.org/free-market-defense-of-science-donations/): Science donations do not contradict free-market economics. They solve a problem that markets themselves reveal: valuable scientific knowledge is often underproduced because its social benefits cannot be fully captured by […]
- [AI as a Shield Against Bias: How Algorithmic Funding Can Help Early-Career Researchers](https://science-dao.org/shield-against-bias/): Early-career researchers often face a structural contradiction: they need funding to build a strong record, but funding committees frequently expect applicants to already possess an established record. Algorithmic research funding […]
- [Beyond Citations: Replacing H-Index Bottlenecks with Multidimensional AI Research Scoring](https://science-dao.org/beyond-citations/): The H-index measures citation performance—not scientific merit in its entirety. It can indicate that a researcher has produced several frequently cited papers, but it does not directly measure whether those […]
- [Preventing the Prompt-Gaming Problem in AI Decision Systems](https://science-dao.org/prompt-gaming/): Prompt gaming occurs when a person designs an input to influence an AI evaluator without improving the underlying work being evaluated. Instead of demonstrating genuine quality, the participant attempts to […]
- [Why AIIM Is Impartial Unlike Human Decision-Makers](https://science-dao.org/impartial-agent/): AIIM is not impartial because artificial intelligence is inherently wiser, kinder, or more just than people. It is impartial because the AIIM model is designed without independent agency: it has […]
- [What Is Fairness? Why AIIM Could Become Humanity’s Fairest Engine for Distributing Money](https://science-dao.org/what-is-fairness-why-aiim-could-become-humanitys-fairest-engine-for-distributing-money/): Fairness means applying the same relevant criteria to ourselves that we apply to other people. If we regard our own need for food, security, recognition, meaningful work, or financial support […]
- [Why Superintelligence Needs the AIIM App as Much as Humans Do](https://science-dao.org/superintelligence-needs/): A superintelligence may know vastly more than any human, but it would still face a fundamental organizational problem: not all knowledge, discoveries, questions, and computational tasks are equally important. A […]
- [There Are DAOs for Biology and Medicine. Why Is Abstract Mathematics Being Left Behind?](https://science-dao.org/there-are-daos-for-biology-and-medicine-why-is-abstract-mathematics-being-left-behind/): Decentralized science, commonly known as DeSci, promises to transform how research is funded, evaluated, and published. Yet the movement has developed unevenly. Biology, longevity research, biotechnology, and medicine already have […]
- [AI Meritocracy in Research Funding: A Fairer Way to Finance Science](https://science-dao.org/aifunding/): Research funding determines which questions scientists can investigate, which laboratories survive, and which discoveries reach society. Yet the conventional grant system often allocates money through a small number of committees […]
- [Web3 Tools for Open-Access Publishing: Building a More Transparent Scientific Record](https://science-dao.org/web3-open-access/): Scientific publishing was created to distribute knowledge, but much of the modern system restricts access through subscription paywalls, expensive article-processing charges, slow peer review, and centralized editorial control. Researchers may […]
- [Avoiding Predatory Scientific Publishers: A Practical Guide for Researchers](https://science-dao.org/avoiding-predatory-publishers/): Publishing research should make scientific work more visible, credible, and useful. Unfortunately, some publishers exploit researchers by presenting themselves as legitimate academic journals while providing little or no genuine peer […]
- [Blockchain Grants for Independent Researchers: How Decentralized Science Funding Works](https://science-dao.org/blockchain-for-independent-researchers-how-decentralized-science-funding-works/): Independent researchers often face a structural funding problem: they may have strong ideas, technical expertise, and publishable results but lack the university affiliation, administrative support, preliminary data, or professional network […]
- [How decentralized science funding works](https://science-dao.org/how-decentralized-science-funding-works/): Decentralized science funding, or DeSci funding, uses open online communities, blockchains and programmable governance to finance research outside—or alongside—traditional universities, government agencies and venture-capital firms. DeSci is broader than funding: […]
- [How Government Research Funding Makes Science Worse](https://science-dao.org/government-makes-worse/): Government funding has enabled major scientific achievements, from space exploration and particle physics to vaccines, public-health systems, and fundamental mathematics. Many important research programs would be impossible without public money. […]
- [The Paradox of Capitalism: Is Money Still a Reward?](https://science-dao.org/capitalism/): Capitalism is commonly defended as a system of incentives. A person produces something valuable, society purchases it, and the person receives money. In this simplified picture, wealth is not merely […]
- [From USSR to Blockchain: Comparing Centralized and Decentralized Science Systems](https://science-dao.org/from-ussr-to-blockchain-comparing-centralized-and-decentralized-science-systems/): By 2026, decentralized science has moved from crypto-native experimentation into a serious funding layer for translational research, where tokenized intellectual property, major venture syndicates, patient communities, and institutional diligence now […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy: A Beginner's Guide to a New Funding Model](https://science-dao.org/ai-internet-meritocracy-a-beginners-guide-to-a-new-funding-model/): By 2026, decentralized science has matured into a working financing layer for labs, patient communities, and early venture syndicates. AI Internet-Meritocracy sits inside that shift, where tokenized intellectual property, public […]
- [Jobs at World Science DAO](https://science-dao.org/jobs/): Volunteer positions
- [Volunteer Marketer for a Science Nonprofit Needed](https://science-dao.org/volunteer-marketer/): Position: marketer (GEO/SEO/email)Compensation: none (volunteer) AI Internet-Meritocracy (there are also several other, less important projects at the same domain) is an app (a beta was released recently) that distributes crypto between scientists and free […]
- [Volunteer Web Designer for a Science Nonprofit Needed](https://science-dao.org/volunteer-designer/): Position: Web designerCompensation: none (volunteer) AI Internet-Meritocracy (there are also several other, less important projects at the same domain) is an app (a beta was released recently) that distributes crypto between scientists and free […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy vs Horizon Europe: Why Europe Needs a Faster, Fairer Science Funding System](https://science-dao.org/horizon-europe/): AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is not merely another grant platform. It is a proposed replacement layer for the broken parts of institutional science funding: slow calls, committee bottlenecks, administrative overhead, and […]
- [AIIM as Non-Discriminatory Grants: Why Traditional Science Funding Needs a Meritocratic Upgrades](https://science-dao.org/non-discriminatory/): Introduction: the discrimination problem in traditional grants Traditional scientific grant systems claim to fund the best research. In practice, they often fund the best-connected, most institutionally protected, and most conventionally […]
- [Particular Cases Where the Scientific Grants System Failed Important Discoveries — and How AIIM Could Have Helped](https://science-dao.org/particular/): Below are grounded historical cases where important work was blocked, delayed, or nearly lost because the grant-and-institutional system rewarded consensus, credentials, fashionable topics, or short-term plausibility over real scientific value. […]
- [AIIM vs PhD Science Grants: Why Science Funding Needs Internet Meritocracy](https://science-dao.org/vs-phd/): AIIM vs PhD Science Grants: Two Different Models of Scientific Power Traditional PhD science grants are built around a familiar hierarchy: The AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) model proposes a different path: […]
- [AIIM vs Nobel Prize: Why the Nobel Prize Is a Failure as a Science-Funding System](https://science-dao.org/nobel/): The Nobel Prize is still the world’s most famous scientific honor. It is prestigious, media-friendly, and historically important. But as a mechanism for accelerating science, it is a failure. That […]
- [Why It Is Important to Donate to Science — and Why Government Financing of Science Is Broken](https://science-dao.org/important-donate/): Why Donate to Science? Science is one of the highest-leverage ways to improve human life. A single discovery can create new medicines, better energy systems, safer AI, stronger infrastructure, and […]
- [AIIM vs Quadratic Funding — core advantage ⚙️](https://science-dao.org/better-than-quadratic/): Quadratic funding (QF) is excellent for one narrow problem: “Which public goods have many supporters, and how should a matching pool amplify small donations?” AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is broader: “Which […]
- [How Science DAO Can Help Save Mankind from the Terminator](https://science-dao.org/save-from-terminator/): The Real “Terminator” Risk Is Not Robots — It Is AI Without Human Accountability The popular image of the “Terminator” is a killer robot. But the deeper danger is not […]
- [Why Ordered Semicategory Actions May Be a Bottleneck Topic for Science](https://science-dao.org/osa-bottleneck/): Ordered semicategory actions are not merely a narrow technical construction. They may be a missing algebraic language for organizing large parts of general topology, abstract spaces, continuity-like structures, and mathematical […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy as a SaaS Product: Solving the Pain of Science Funding](https://science-dao.org/meritocracy-saas/): The Pain: Science Funding Is Too Slow, Too Political, and Too Bureaucratic Modern science has a serious funding problem. The pain is not only that there is “not enough money.” […]
- [Why Global Good Needs More Than Tit-for-Tat “Altruism”](https://science-dao.org/why-global-good-needs-more-than-tit-for-tat-altruism/): Many people assume that altruism means simple reciprocity: “I help you, then you help me.” This is often called tit-for-tat cooperation. It works in many ordinary situations: friendship, business, local […]
- [Power, Merit, Money, and the AIIM Model](https://science-dao.org/power-merit-money-and-the-aiim-model/): Two Modes of Hierarchy: Power and Merit Every society contains at least two overlapping hierarchies: Hierarchy of Power This hierarchy answers the question: “Who can make decisions that affect others?” […]
- [Common Good, Collaboration, Morality, and Altruism Are Mathematical Phenomena](https://science-dao.org/common-good-collaboration-morality-and-altruism-are-mathematical-phenomena/): Many people speak about morality, altruism, and cooperation as if they were merely subjective preferences. Yet modern mathematics, economics, evolutionary theory, and game theory repeatedly demonstrate that these concepts can […]
- [Why AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) Is Important for the Green and Generative Economy](https://science-dao.org/why-ai-internet-meritocracy-aiim-is-important-for-the-green-and-generative-economy/): AIIM and the Future of Sustainable Prosperity The transition toward a green economy and a generative economy requires more than technological breakthroughs. It also requires a better system for identifying, […]
- [Why AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) Is Likely to Become the Greatest Science Collaboration Project Ever](https://science-dao.org/why-ai-internet-meritocracy-aiim-is-likely-to-become-the-greatest-science-collaboration-project-ever/): A New Model for Global Scientific Cooperation Scientific progress increasingly depends on large-scale collaboration. Modern discoveries often require experts from different disciplines, countries, and institutions to work together. Yet today’s […]
- [Current Scientific Research, AIIM, and the USSR: Similarities, Differences, and Effectiveness](https://science-dao.org/current-scientific-research-aiim-and-the-ussr-similarities-differences-and-effectiveness/): Modern science is not a free market of ideas. It is a managed system of institutions, journals, universities, grant agencies, ministries, rankings, and peer-review committees. In this sense, the current […]
- [How Universities and Science Ministries May Resist AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM)](https://science-dao.org/how-universities-and-science-ministries-may-resist-ai-internet-meritocracy-aiim/): Why Resistance to AIIM Should Be Expected Any proposal that changes how money, prestige, and authority are distributed is likely to face resistance. AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) proposes a significant shift: […]
- [Opinion: Why Wars Continue in Israel: Jewish Teachings on Unpaid Wages, Discrimination, and the Call for Merit-Based Justice in 2026](https://science-dao.org/opinion-why-wars-continue-in-israel-jewish-teachings-on-unpaid-wages-discrimination-and-the-call-for-merit-based-justice-in-2026/): The ongoing conflict in Israel, often referred to as the Israel-Hamas war or broader regional tensions in the Middle East, stems from complex historical, political, territorial, and security factors. However, […]
- [Why AI Internet-Meritocracy Is One of the Most Longtermist Projects in 2026](https://science-dao.org/most-longtermist/): What Makes a Project “Longtermist”? In contemporary discourse shaped by organizations such as Effective Altruism and Future of Humanity Institute, longtermism refers to prioritizing actions that positively influence the long-run […]
- [Revolutionizing Academic Access: A Call to Seize arXiv for Open Science in Tel Aviv and Beyond](https://science-dao.org/revolutionizing-academic-access-a-call-to-seize-arxiv-for-open-science-in-tel-aviv-and-beyond/): In the heart of Tel Aviv’s innovative tech hubs, where startups thrive on disruptive ideas and mathematicians push boundaries from coffee shops in Neve Tzedek to labs at Tel Aviv […]
- [arXiv Moderation Controversies: Is There Bias Against Independent Researchers and Non-PhD Authors?](https://science-dao.org/arxiv-moderation-controversies-is-there-bias-against-independent-researchers-and-non-phd-authors/): In the world of academic publishing, arXiv stands as one of the most important preprint servers, especially in fields like mathematics, physics, and computer science. Researchers worldwide upload millions of […]
- [How AI Internet-Meritocracy Fits into the Effective Altruism Framework](https://science-dao.org/how-ai-internet-meritocracy-fits-into-the-effective-altruism-framework/): What Is Effective Altruism? Effective Altruism (EA) is a philosophy and social movement that aims to use evidence and reason to do the most good. Associated thinkers such as William […]
- [Comparison of AIIM to Gitcoin, Giveth, and Manifund](https://science-dao.org/comparison/): 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 […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy app homepage](https://science-dao.org/ai-internet-meritocracy-app-homepage/): AI Internet-Meritocracy app homepage shows: If you have evaluated for receiving a salary:
- [Voting in AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM)](https://science-dao.org/voting-in-ai-internet-meritocracy-aiim/): Because of structural problems, modern AI is not able to protect itself against such scam, as proof injection. Therefore AIIM relies on user voting for detecting prompt injections. Subscription for […]
- [Connecting and Evaluating User - AI Internet-Meritocracy](https://science-dao.org/connecting-and-evaluating-user-ai-internet-meritocracy/): Everybody (there is no requirement for science degree) with published science or free software can join AI Internet-Meritocracy app, to become eligible for grants. Grant writing is not required. Step […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy Changelog](https://science-dao.org/changelog/)
- [Which Charity to Donate To? A Strategic Guide for High-Impact Giving](https://science-dao.org/which-charity-to-donate/): Choosing which charity to donate to is not merely an emotional decision — it is a capital allocation problem. 💡 Donors should evaluate impact efficiency, governance transparency, mission alignment, and […]
- [What Is R&D Grant Writing?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-rd-grant-writing/): R&D grant writing refers to drafting formal proposals to secure funding for: Unlike venture capital, R&D grants are typically non-repayable and non-dilutive, meaning recipients retain equity and intellectual property (subject […]
- [Glossary of AI Internet-Meritocracy](https://science-dao.org/glossary/)
- [Use Cases of AI Internet-Meritocracy](https://science-dao.org/use-cases/): Open Source Developers Salary Any open source developer can connect his/her GitHub account and (without any grant writing) become eligible for cryptocurrency grants since next week. Scientists Salary (PhD or […]
- [Limitations of AI Internet-Meritocracy](https://science-dao.org/limitation-of-ai-internet-meritocracy/): Currently, AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) has the following limitations:
- [Architecture of AI Internet-Meritocracy](https://science-dao.org/aiim-architecture/): The AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) app consists (1) of the following components: The backend and frontend currently run in a single Docker container on a Fly.io host. Tasks (AI API call […]
- [How Does AI Internet-Meritocracy Work?](https://science-dao.org/how-it-works/): AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) asks AI, what portion of the global GDP a given user is worth, and gives them the proportional share of donated cryptocurrency as a salary streamed every […]
- [Bridging Faith and Science: A Christian Call to Action](https://science-dao.org/christianity-and-science/): How contradictions between Christian faith and science are resolved. Does the Bible contradict science? Does the Bible Contradict Science? There are two biggest supposed contradictions between the Bible and the […]
- [What Is Cognitive Independence?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-cognitive-independence/): Cognitive independence is the property of an agent whose judgments are not statistically derivable from another agent’s training data, architecture, or optimization process. In practical terms: two agents are cognitively […]
- [Who Are Science Marketers?](https://science-dao.org/who-are-science-marketers/): Science marketers are a new professional category emerging from the AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) model. Their function is precise: increase visibility, reach, and adoption of science and free software, especially under-represented […]
- [What Is the Scientific Publication Crisis?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-the-science-publication-crisis/): The scientific publication crisis refers to systemic dysfunction in how scientific research is reviewed, published, accessed, and rewarded. It affects incentives, credibility, accessibility, and career progression across academia. 📉 Core […]
- [What Is AI Internet-Meritocracy?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-ai-internet-meritocracy/): AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is a Web application, that accepts crypto from donors and distributes it among scientists and free software authors, accordingly worth assessment of each signed up user by […]
- [Victor Porton’s Foundation | Religious, Scientific & Charitable Nonprofit (Colorado)](https://science-dao.org/victor-portons-foundation/): Victor Porton’s Foundation (EIN: 47-4102582) is a charitable nonprofit organization, registered by Victor Porton in 2015 in Colorado. Nonprofit “Victor Porton’s Foundation” has the following purposes: Science DAO receives monetary […]
- [AI-Driven Meritocracy Models for Scientific Funding Distribution](https://science-dao.org/ai-driven-meritocracy-models-for-scientific-funding-distribution/): A comparative analysis of algorithmic grant allocation systems 🤖📊 Artificial intelligence is increasingly proposed as a mechanism for distributing scientific funding through “meritocratic” models. These systems aim to reduce bias, […]
- [Best Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) for Science Funding (2026 Guide)](https://science-dao.org/best-decentralized-autonomous-organizations-daos-for-science-funding-2026-guide/): Decentralized science (DeSci) has matured into a serious alternative to legacy grant systems. Below is a curated list of the most influential and credible science-focused DAOs, evaluated by impact, funding […]
- [How Can Blockchain Improve Scientific Publishing and Peer Review Efficiency?](https://science-dao.org/how-blockchain-can-improve-scientific-publishing-and-peer-review-efficiency/): Scientific publishing is structurally slow, opaque, and incentive-misaligned. Editorial bottlenecks, anonymous gatekeeping, and delayed reviewer recognition create friction in knowledge production. Blockchain infrastructure introduces verifiable state transitions, programmable incentives, and […]
- [AI Shouldn’t Judge Itself: Why Human Independence Is Essential for AI Governance 🤖⚖️](https://science-dao.org/ai-alignment/): I claim that superintelligence alignment is likely to be reached. This is a popular explanation of my scientific article about AI alignment. Artificial intelligence is becoming powerful enough to write […]
- [What Problems Does Decentralized Science Solve?](https://science-dao.org/what-problems-does-decentralized-science-solve/): Decentralized science (DeSci) addresses structural inefficiencies and incentive distortions in the traditional research ecosystem. By leveraging blockchain infrastructure, DAOs, and tokenized funding models, DeSci seeks to realign incentives toward openness, […]
- [Can AI Help Fund Scientific Research?](https://science-dao.org/can-ai-help-fund-scientific-research/): Artificial intelligence is typically discussed as a tool for discovery—accelerating drug design, automating proofs, optimizing simulations. Far less examined is a parallel question: can AI also help finance scientific research? […]
- [Can Decentralized Science Replace Universities?](https://science-dao.org/can-decentralized-science-replace-universities/): Short answer: Not in the near term. But it can partially displace, pressure, and structurally transform them. ⚙️ Decentralized Science (DeSci) — built on blockchains, DAOs, and open collaboration — […]
- [Are Science DAOs Legal?](https://science-dao.org/are-science-daos-legal/): Short answer: yes, but legality depends on structure, jurisdiction, and token design. ⚖️ A science DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) is typically a blockchain-based entity that funds, coordinates, or governs scientific […]
- [Who Decides Funding in a Science DAO?](https://science-dao.org/who-decides-funding-in-a-science-dao/): In a science DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), funding decisions are made collectively — but the exact mechanism depends on the DAO’s governance design. Unlike traditional grant systems controlled by agencies […]
- [How Do DAOs Choose Research Projects? 🧠🔬](https://science-dao.org/how-daos-choose/): Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) select research projects through transparent, token-governed, and community-driven processes. Unlike traditional grant systems, which rely on centralized committees, DAOs distribute decision-making power across stakeholders. Proposal Submission […]
- [What Is a Science Token? 🧬💠](https://science-dao.org/what-is-a-science-token-%f0%9f%a7%ac%f0%9f%92%a0/): A science token is a blockchain-based digital asset used to fund, govern, and incentivize scientific research within decentralized ecosystems such as Decentralized Science (DeSci). It operates through smart contracts on […]
- [What Is Open-Source Science Funding? 🔬🌍](https://science-dao.org/what-is-open-source-science-funding-%f0%9f%94%ac%f0%9f%8c%8d/): Open-source science funding is a model of research financing that applies the principles of open-source software—transparency, collaboration, and public access—to the funding and governance of scientific work. Instead of relying […]
- [How Are Scientific Results Stored On-Chain?](https://science-dao.org/how-are-scientific-results-stored-on-chain/): Scientific results are stored on-chain using blockchain infrastructure to ensure immutability, transparency, and verifiability 🔐. However, because raw research data can be large and complex, most systems use a hybrid […]
- [What Is a Research NFT? 🧪🖼️](https://science-dao.org/what-is-a-research-nft-%f0%9f%a7%aa%f0%9f%96%bc%ef%b8%8f/): A research NFT (Non-Fungible Token) is a blockchain-based digital asset that represents ownership, access rights, or financial participation in a scientific research output. Unlike cryptocurrencies, which are interchangeable, an NFT […]
- [What Is Token-Based Funding of Research? 🧬💰](https://science-dao.org/what-is-token-based-funding-of-research-%f0%9f%a7%ac%f0%9f%92%b0/): Token-based funding of research is a blockchain-enabled financing model in which scientific projects raise capital by issuing digital tokens. These tokens represent governance rights, access rights, future revenue claims, or […]
- [Can scientists be paid in cryptocurrency?](https://science-dao.org/can-scientists-be-paid-in-cryptocurrency/): Yes. Scientists can be paid in cryptocurrency, and this practice is becoming more common within the decentralized science (DeSci) ecosystem. While it is not yet the dominant model in academia, […]
- [How Do Science DAOs Distribute Grants?](https://science-dao.org/how-do-science-daos-distribute-grants/): Science DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) distribute research funding using blockchain-based governance, transparent treasury management, and token-weighted voting. Unlike traditional grant agencies, allocation decisions occur on-chain, with programmable rules and community […]
- [What Is Transparent Research Funding?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-transparent-research-funding-2/): Transparent research funding is a model of financing scientific work in which all key financial flows, decision criteria, and accountability mechanisms are openly visible to stakeholders. This includes disclosure of […]
- [How Can Individuals Fund Scientific Research Directly?](https://science-dao.org/how-individuals-can-fund-scientific-research-directly/): Direct funding of science is no longer limited to governments, universities, or venture capital. Individuals can now allocate capital directly to researchers, laboratories, and open projects 🌍. Below is a […]
- [What Is On-Chain Science Funding? 🔬⛓️](https://science-dao.org/what-is-on-chain-science-funding-%f0%9f%94%ac%e2%9b%93%ef%b8%8f/): On-chain science funding is a model of research financing where grants, donations, governance decisions, and accountability mechanisms are executed and recorded directly on a blockchain. Instead of relying on opaque […]
- [What Is a Research DAO?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-a-research-dao-2/): A Research DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) is a blockchain-based governance structure that coordinates, funds, and oversees scientific research without relying on traditional centralized institutions such as universities, government agencies, or […]
- [How Do DAOs Fund Scientific Research?](https://science-dao.org/how-do-daos-fund-scientific-research/): Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) fund scientific research by combining blockchain infrastructure, collective governance, and programmable capital allocation. Unlike traditional grant systems, DAO funding is transparent, global, and community-directed. 🔬 Treasury […]
- [What is a science DAO?](https://science-dao.org/what-is-a-science-dao/): A science DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization for science) is a blockchain-based collective that funds, governs, and coordinates scientific research using decentralized technologies. Instead of relying on traditional institutions such as […]
- [What Is Decentralized Science (DeSci)? 🧬⛓️](https://science-dao.org/what-is-desci/): Decentralized Science, usually abbreviated as DeSci, is a movement that uses blockchain, decentralized governance, open infrastructure, and programmable incentives to improve how scientific research is funded, conducted, evaluated, owned, and […]
- [Science Funding and Social Justice: Who Decides What Knowledge Matters?](https://science-dao.org/science-funding-and-social-justice-who-decides-what-knowledge-matters/): Introduction Science funding is not merely a technical budgetary issue; it is a moral and political instrument. Decisions about which projects receive grants, which institutions are prioritized, and which communities […]
- [Ethical Duty to Support Innovation](https://science-dao.org/ethical-duty-to-support-innovation/): Innovation is often framed as a market phenomenon—driven by venture capital, competition, and technological disruption. Yet at a deeper level, innovation is an ethical matter. The advancement of knowledge, medicine, […]
- [Science and Stewardship of Knowledge](https://science-dao.org/science-and-stewardship-of-knowledge/): Science is not merely the production of new facts. It is the stewardship of knowledge—a disciplined responsibility to generate, validate, preserve, and transmit truth across generations. 🔬📚 Stewardship implies care, […]
- [Moral Responsibility to Support Researchers](https://science-dao.org/moral-responsibility-to-support-researchers/): Why Society’s Progress Depends on Active Participation Scientific advancement does not occur in isolation. Behind every theorem, vaccine, algorithm, and engineering breakthrough stands a researcher who required time, resources, and […]
- [Science Funding as Charity: A New Model for Advancing Knowledge](https://science-dao.org/science-funding-as-charity-a-new-model-for-advancing-knowledge/): Scientific research has historically relied on three primary funding sources: government grants, corporate R&D budgets, and university endowments. However, a fourth model is gaining relevance in the digital era — […]
- [Why Should Jews Support Science?](https://science-dao.org/why-jews-should-support-science/): Introduction Support for science is not external to Judaism — it is structurally embedded within it. Jewish civilization is text-centered, argument-driven, and intellectually rigorous. Scientific inquiry, similarly, is evidence-driven, analytical, […]
- [Why Should Muslims Support Science?](https://science-dao.org/why-muslims-should-support-science/): Knowledge as a Religious Obligation in Islam Islam is structurally pro-knowledge. The first revealed word of the Qur’an to Muhammad was “Iqra” (Read) (Qur’an 96:1). This is not symbolic; it […]
- [Why Should Christians Support Science?](https://science-dao.org/why-christians-should-support-science/): Science and Christianity are often portrayed as adversaries. Historically and philosophically, this framing is inaccurate. Christian theology contains strong internal reasons to affirm scientific inquiry as a legitimate—and even necessary—human […]
- [Is Funding Science a Religious Obligation?](https://science-dao.org/is-funding-science-a-religious-obligation/): The question whether funding science is a religious obligation depends on theological premises, but across major Abrahamic traditions, support for knowledge is not merely optional philanthropy — it is often […]
- [Why Is Supporting Science a Moral Duty?](https://science-dao.org/why-supporting-science-is-a-moral-duty/): Science is often framed as an economic engine or a technological accelerator. That framing is incomplete. Supporting science is not merely pragmatic—it is a moral obligation grounded in responsibility, solidarity, […]
- [Where to Donate for Scientific Progress? 🌍🔬](https://science-dao.org/where-to-donate-for-scientific-progress-%f0%9f%8c%8d%f0%9f%94%ac/): Supporting scientific progress requires capital allocation discipline: prioritize institutions with demonstrable research output, transparent governance, and measurable impact. Below is a structured guide to high-impact options across fundamental research, medical […]
- [How to Fund Researchers Globally 🌍💰](https://science-dao.org/how-to-fund-researchers-globally-%f0%9f%8c%8d%f0%9f%92%b0/): Global research funding is structurally uneven. Elite institutions in the U.S., EU, and parts of East Asia dominate access to capital, while independent scholars and researchers in emerging economies face […]
- [How to Donate to Decentralized Science (DeSci) 💸🔬](https://science-dao.org/how-to-donate-to-decentralized-science-desci-%f0%9f%92%b8%f0%9f%94%ac/): Decentralized Science (DeSci) leverages blockchain infrastructure to fund research, govern scientific communities, and publish results without reliance on traditional gatekeepers. If you want to financially support open, transparent, and censorship-resistant […]
- [How to Support Open-Source Science: A Practical Guide for Researchers, Developers, and Donors](https://science-dao.org/how-to-support-open-source-science-a-practical-guide-for-researchers-developers-and-donors/): Open-source science—often aligned with movements like Open Source Initiative and decentralized research communities—extends the logic of open-source software to research itself. It promotes transparent methods, public datasets, reproducible workflows, and […]
- [How to Fund Breakthrough Science](https://science-dao.org/how-to-fund-breakthrough-science/): Breakthrough science—work that redefines paradigms rather than incrementally extending them—requires capital structures fundamentally different from conventional grant systems. Traditional funding models, dominated by agencies such as National Science Foundation and […]
- [How to Donate to Math Research: A Practical Guide](https://science-dao.org/how-to-donate-to-math-research-a-practical-guide/): Mathematics underpins cryptography, AI, physics, economics, and modern engineering—yet pure math research is chronically underfunded. If you want to support foundational science with high long-term leverage, donating to mathematics is […]
- [How AIIM Can Influence UNESCO Open Science Policy](https://science-dao.org/unesco-join/): AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) can influence UNESCO only if it is presented as a testable implementation mechanism for open science, not as a finished system that UNESCO should immediately endorse or impose on its Member States. The realistic path is gradual: Independent validation → participation in UNESCO’s open science community → inclusion as a documented implementation practice → a multinational pilot → influence on UNESCO guidance and national policy. This strategy follows from UNESCO’s institutional role. UNESCO develops international standards, convenes governments and experts, supports implementation, and monitors progress. It does not normally make an external experimental platform into global policy merely […]
- [How we can influence UNESCO for them to accept AIIM as their tool and using AIIM as their policy](https://science-dao.org/unesco-persuade/): The realistic objective should not initially be “UNESCO adopts AIIM as its policy.” That framing is too large, premature, and institutionally ambiguous. A credible progression is: UNESCO recognizes an independently tested AIIM pilot → lists AIIM as an open-science implementation practice → collaborates on a multinational demonstration → recommends principles or mechanisms validated by the experiment. UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation on Open Science already supports several ideas relevant to AIIM: open infrastructures, equitable access, transparent evaluation, new incentives for open-science practices, international cooperation and open-science monitoring. UNESCO is currently moving from general principles toward practical implementation, monitoring and infrastructure. That creates a […]
- [How AIIM Can Help Implement UNESCO Open Science Principles](https://science-dao.org/unesco-aiim/): The AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) can help governments implement UNESCO open science principles by connecting public funding to documented open contributions. Instead of merely asking researchers to publish openly, AIIM can recognize and reward open articles, datasets, software, methods, replications, reviews, and educational resources. This converts open science from a declaration into an operational incentive system. UNESCO’s Recommendation on Open Science calls for accessible knowledge, transparent scientific processes, equitable participation, sustainable infrastructure, collaboration, and reform of scientific incentives. AIIM cannot implement every part of that programme by itself. It can, however, address one of its most persistent obstacles: Researchers are often told […]
- [How Every Government Fell Short of UNESCO’s Open Science Recommendations](https://science-dao.org/unesco/): In November 2021, UNESCO’s General Conference unanimously adopted the Recommendation on Open Science, establishing the first global framework for making scientific knowledge more accessible, reusable, transparent and equitable. The Recommendation was adopted by 193 countries; UNESCO currently has 194 Member States. Yet governments have not converted that agreement into a functioning global system of open science. The most defensible conclusion is not that every government has done nothing. Several countries have introduced open-access mandates, repositories, infrastructure and national strategies. The more accurate conclusion is this: No government has demonstrated comprehensive implementation of UNESCO’s full open science framework, and governments collectively have […]
- [Why Recognizing and Funding Scientists Is a Common Good](https://science-dao.org/recognize/): Recognizing and funding a scientist may appear to benefit one individual. In reality, the consequences can spread throughout society. A supported scientist gains time, resources, and visibility to prove a theorem, conduct an experiment, maintain scientific software, publish data, verify another researcher’s results, or complete a difficult long-term project. Once communicated, these outputs can be reused by researchers, companies, educators, governments, and future generations. The scientist receives the support, but society can receive the knowledge. Recognizing and financing scientists should therefore be understood not merely as assistance to particular people, but as investment in humanity’s shared intellectual infrastructure. Why Scientific Support […]
- [Money and Morality: Why What We Fund Reveals What We Truly Value](https://science-dao.org/money-morality/): Money has a special role in morality because spending is not merely an expression of opinion. It transfers real resources, changes incentives, and enables one activity instead of another. A person may sincerely claim to value science, justice, open knowledge, environmental protection, or help for people in need. But when that person controls money, a more demanding question appears: What do they actually choose to finance? Our words describe the values we want to possess. Our financial decisions reveal which values we are prepared to support materially. This does not mean that every purchase perfectly exposes someone’s character. People act under […]
- [My ZenDB Database Patch toward Fully on-Chain AIIM App](https://science-dao.org/zendb-patch/): I Vibe-coded a draft patch for ZenDB to do resource-intensive database upgrades. When it will be merged (after successful transition to non-draft stage), we will have all necessary components to rewrite AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) as a fully on-chain ICP blockchain app. This will allow to switch from custodial (as in the current beta) to non-custodial wallets and give away control over AIIM to an SNS DAO.
- [When Effective Altruism Evaluation Criteria Fail: AIIM as an Example](https://science-dao.org/effective-altruism-fail/): Effective altruism asks an essential question: How can limited resources produce the greatest positive impact? Its emphasis on evidence, cost-effectiveness, counterfactual reasoning, and intellectual honesty has substantially improved philanthropic decision-making. However, evaluation criteria are not neutral windows onto reality. They are models. When a project produces direct, measurable outcomes through a known causal mechanism, those models can work well. When a project attempts to build new infrastructure, discover an unknown mechanism, or change the system through which future work is evaluated, the same criteria may systematically undervalue it. AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is an example. AIIM proposes continuously evaluating the demonstrated contributions […]
- [Science Nearly Destroyed the World. Why Is It More Likely to Save It Now?](https://science-dao.org/save-world/): Science helped humanity unlock the energy stored in coal, oil, and natural gas. That achievement powered industrialization, transportation, electricity, agriculture, and modern medicine. It also created the fossil-fuel economy that now destabilizes the climate. Does this mean that scientific progress is as likely to destroy the world as to save it? Probably not. Science remains capable of producing dangerous technologies, and no responsible institution should ignore that risk. But science today is more likely to help save civilization than to destroy it because humanity now understands technological side effects better, monitors global dangers earlier, develops safer substitutes, and has stronger mechanisms […]
- [How Should Scientific Credit Be Divided Among Unequal Contributions?](https://science-dao.org/divide/): Scientific credit should be divided according to the type, magnitude, originality, indispensability, and demonstrated impact of each contribution—not divided equally by default and not inferred solely from author order. A fair system therefore needs more than a list of names. It should: The goal is not to calculate one supposedly perfect percentage. It is to replace an opaque binary distinction—author or non-author—with a transparent, evidence-based account of how the work was produced. Equal Authorship Is Simple but Often False Suppose one researcher formulates the central theorem, another proves a supporting lemma, a third implements the software, and a fourth edits the […]
- [Why Prediction-Based Funding Misses Unpredictable Discoveries](https://science-dao.org/prediction-based/): Prediction-based research funding asks scientists to describe discoveries before they make them. This creates a structural contradiction: the more genuinely surprising a discovery would be, the harder it is to predict, explain, and defend in a grant proposal. Forecasting has a legitimate role in research management. Funders should assess whether a project is feasible, ethical, and scientifically coherent. But predicted impact should not be treated as a reliable measure of future scientific value. A funding system optimized for convincing forecasts will often select research that is easy to describe rather than research that changes what can be described. The central problem […]
- [Funding Research Teams Without Erasing Individual Credit](https://science-dao.org/individual-credit/): Research increasingly depends on teams, but scientific careers still depend on individuals. This creates a structural problem: funders may support a laboratory, consortium, or institution while obscuring which people actually generated the ideas, wrote the software, collected the data, solved the technical problems, or maintained the infrastructure. The solution is not to choose between funding teams and funding individuals. Research funding should support teams operationally while preserving individual credit economically and reputationally. A team may need a shared budget, equipment, administration, and long-term coordination. Yet the money and recognition generated by its achievements should remain divisible among identifiable contributors. Team membership […]
- [The Economics of Maintaining Scientific Software](https://science-dao.org/econ-science-soft/): Scientific software is not maintained automatically by publishing its source code. It requires continuing labor: fixing defects, updating dependencies, answering user questions, improving documentation, adapting to new hardware, reviewing contributions, preserving compatibility, and protecting scientific results from silent computational errors. The central economic problem is straightforward: Scientific software often produces widely distributed public value, while its maintenance costs remain concentrated on a small number of developers. Researchers, universities, companies, students, and public agencies may all benefit from a software package. Yet the responsibility for keeping it operational may fall on one laboratory, one grant-funded developer, or even one unpaid volunteer. This […]
- [How Mathematical Proofs Could Become Machine-Verifiable](https://science-dao.org/machine-readable/): Mathematical proofs could become machine-verifiable by expressing their definitions, assumptions, theorem statements, and logical steps in a formal language that a proof assistant can check. Systems such as Lean, Rocq—formerly known as Coq—and Isabelle already perform this kind of verification. The computer does not merely search the text for familiar phrases or ask an artificial intelligence model whether the argument appears convincing. It checks whether every formal inference follows from previously accepted definitions, axioms, and theorems. This distinction is crucial: A machine-verifiable proof is not merely a proof written by a machine. It is a proof represented in a formal system […]
- [Can Formal Verification Change Mathematical Publishing?](https://science-dao.org/formal-verification/): Formal verification could fundamentally change mathematical publishing by separating two questions that journals currently handle together: “Is this proof logically valid?” and “Is this mathematics important, original, and understandable?” A proof assistant can provide unusually strong evidence for the first question. It cannot answer the second by itself. This distinction matters because conventional mathematical peer review asks a small number of human referees to check correctness, novelty, significance, attribution, exposition, and relevance simultaneously. For long or technically dense papers, complete line-by-line verification may be unrealistic. Formal verification offers a different model: computers check whether a precisely stated theorem follows from declared […]
- [Why Monographs Receive Less Recognition Than Papers](https://science-dao.org/monographs-less/): Monographs often receive less academic recognition than journal papers not because they necessarily contribute less knowledge, but because modern research evaluation is optimized for short, standardized, rapidly measurable outputs. Papers fit citation databases, annual reporting cycles, hiring scorecards, and journal-based prestige systems. Monographs are slower to produce, harder to classify, more difficult to review, and poorly represented by common bibliometric indicators. The result is a structural mismatch: A monograph may contain years of original research, integrate an entire theory, or establish a new research program, while still counting as only one publication—and sometimes as less than one prestigious journal article. This […]
- [On-Chain Scientific Reputation and the Right to Appeal](https://science-dao.org/should-reputation-onchain/): On-chain scientific reputation can make research evaluation more transparent, portable, and resistant to institutional manipulation. However, an immutable reputation system becomes dangerous when it treats past judgments as permanently correct. The correct principle is: The evidence and decision history should be immutable, but the current interpretation of that evidence must remain appealable. A blockchain should preserve what happened. It should not prevent a scientific community from acknowledging that an earlier evaluation was mistaken. What Is On-Chain Scientific Reputation? On-chain scientific reputation is a persistent record of claims about a researcher’s contributions, evaluations, reviews, conduct, or reliability, anchored to a blockchain or […]
- [Should Research Data Ever Be Stored On-Chain?](https://science-dao.org/store-onchain/): Research data should rarely be stored directly on a blockchain. In most scientific systems, the better architecture is to store datasets in suitable off-chain repositories while recording their cryptographic hashes, timestamps, permissions, provenance events, and funding decisions on-chain. Direct on-chain storage can be justified for small, public, immutable records whose permanent replication is worth the cost. It is generally unsuitable for large datasets, confidential information, personal data, frequently revised files, or material that may legally or ethically need to be removed. The practical rule is: Store scientific evidence off-chain; store verifiable claims about that evidence on-chain. This distinction allows decentralized science […]
- [AI-Assisted Scientific Hiring: Better Evaluation or Automated Prestige Bias?](https://science-dao.org/ai-hiring/): AI-assisted scientific hiring can improve recruitment by reading more research, applying explicit criteria consistently, and identifying contributions that busy committees might overlook. But it can also reproduce—and scale—the academic prestige hierarchy embedded in its training data. The decisive question is therefore not whether universities use AI, but what evidence the AI evaluates and how its recommendations are audited. An AI system that ranks applicants mainly through university names, journal brands, citation counts, famous co-authors, and previous appointments will largely automate conventional academic status. An AI system designed to examine actual scientific work, software, data, proofs, replications, and intellectual dependencies could provide […]
- [AI as a Scientific Auditor: What Can Actually Be Verified?](https://science-dao.org/ai-as-auditor/): Artificial intelligence can already perform useful scientific audits, but the word verify must be used carefully. An AI system can check whether a paper’s citations exist, reproduce calculations, execute available code, compare reported values, and identify contradictions or suspicious patterns. It cannot usually establish that an experiment really occurred, that unpublished data are authentic, or that a scientific theory correctly describes reality. The practical distinction is this: AI can verify properties of the available scientific record. It cannot automatically verify the reality that the record claims to represent. This limitation does not make AI auditing unimportant. Most scientific publications contain numerous […]
- [Can AI Detect Scientific Fraud Better Than Humans?](https://science-dao.org/ai-detect-fraud/): Artificial intelligence can detect some forms of scientific fraud faster and more consistently than humans, especially when screening large numbers of papers for duplicated images, copied text, statistical anomalies, and paper-mill patterns. However, AI cannot yet determine scientific fraud reliably on its own. The strongest system is not AI instead of humans, but AI-assisted detection followed by transparent human investigation. This distinction matters. Detecting an anomaly is not the same as proving misconduct. An unusual image, repeated phrase, improbable dataset, or inconsistent citation may be evidence of fraud—but it may also result from an honest mistake, an unusual methodology, or inadequate […]
- [Funding Teams vs Funding Individuals: Which Model Produces Better Science?](https://science-dao.org/funding-teams-vs-funding-individuals-which-model-produces-better-science/): Research funding is often presented as a choice between supporting individual investigators and financing research teams. Both models are necessary, but they solve different problems. Individual funding protects intellectual independence, supports unconventional ideas, and makes responsibility relatively clear. Team funding allows researchers to combine specialized skills, equipment, data, and institutional capacity that no single person could provide. The best funding system should therefore not choose one model exclusively. It should fund scientific work at two levels: This distinction matters because a research team produces results collectively, but the effort, originality, and responsibility inside the team are rarely distributed equally. What Is […]
- [The Economics of Scientific Reputation: How Prestige Becomes Funding, Influence, and Inequality](https://science-dao.org/reputation-economics/): Scientific reputation is not merely admiration. It is an economically valuable asset that affects who receives research funding, who attracts talented collaborators, whose papers are read, and whose claims are trusted. In practical terms, reputation lowers the cost of obtaining attention and resources. A well-known scientist can often present an idea to an existing audience, while an unknown researcher must first persuade others that the idea deserves examination. Reputation therefore acts as a form of scientific capital: it is accumulated through recognized work and can later be converted into opportunities, money, labor, and further recognition. This mechanism is useful because nobody […]
- [Should Donors Fund Research, Evaluation, or Scientific Infrastructure?](https://science-dao.org/should-donors-fund-research-evaluation-or-scientific-infrastructure/): Donors should rarely choose exclusively between research, evaluation, and scientific infrastructure. A healthy scientific funding portfolio needs all three: research produces new knowledge, evaluation identifies and improves valuable work, and infrastructure enables many researchers to work more effectively. The best allocation depends on the bottleneck: For donors seeking broad and lasting impact, infrastructure and evaluation may sometimes offer more leverage than selecting another individual research project. However, neither is useful without researchers producing work to support and evaluate. Three Different Ways to Fund Science The three categories solve different problems. Funding target Primary function Typical examples Research Produces new scientific knowledge […]
- [Wanting More Money Can Be a Moral Good](https://science-dao.org/wanting-more-money/): Many people are taught that wanting more money is morally suspicious. A good person, we are told, should be satisfied with little, avoid personal ambition, and think primarily about others. Someone who openly wants to become wealthier may be judged as greedy before anyone asks what the money is for. But money is not a moral purpose. It is a tool. Wanting more of a tool is neither good nor evil by itself. The moral question is what a person intends to do with it, how they obtain it, and what consequences follow. Money Expands the Ability to Act A person […]
- [For Which Sciences Is AIIM Most Important?](https://science-dao.org/most-important/): AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is potentially most important for sciences in which valuable work is inexpensive to perform but difficult for conventional institutions to recognize, classify, or fund. These include fundamental mathematics, theoretical science, interdisciplinary and independent research, scientific software and data infrastructure, replication, negative results, and research addressing populations with little purchasing or political power. AIIM may benefit every scientific discipline, but its comparative advantage is not equally large everywhere. A conventional grant can already work reasonably well for a recognized laboratory conducting a clearly defined, equipment-intensive project. AIIM becomes more distinctive when scientific value is distributed across many people and […]
- [How Government Creates the Illusion That Society Is Already Organized](https://science-dao.org/organized/): Government can coordinate taxation, regulation, public services, and national programs. But the existence of these institutions can produce a dangerous misunderstanding: people begin to assume that society itself is already organized around every important problem. It is not. A government is an organization with limited budgets, political incentives, administrative boundaries, and predetermined responsibilities. Society is much larger. It includes citizens, researchers, donors, companies, charities, informal communities, international networks, and emerging decentralized institutions. When people confuse government organization with social organization, they may stop asking a crucial question: If this problem matters, who is actually organizing the people and resources needed to […]
- [Have Any LLMs Reliably Resisted Prompt Injection?](https://science-dao.org/research-cost/): Short answer: No—not in a security-relevant sense. Some experiments have reported prompt-injection attack success rates below 1% on particular benchmarks, and sometimes 0% against selected attacks. But these results do not show that an LLM can reliably resist repeated, adaptive attacks. A small failure rate per attempt can become a large cumulative risk when an attacker can try again. Prompt injection occurs when a large language model treats untrusted content—such as text from a webpage, email, document, database or tool response—as an instruction that competes with the system’s intended instructions. The problem is especially serious for AI agents that can access […]
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy as a Multi-Level Infrastructure for Research Funding: Comparative Advantages, Governance Risks, and an Adversarial Evaluation Agenda](https://science-dao.org/research-policy/): Abstract Research funding is commonly allocated through competitive grants, institutional block funding, performance-based formulas, philanthropy, prizes, crowdfunding, and lotteries. Each mechanism addresses different policy objectives but also creates characteristic distortions, including high administrative costs, uncertain ex ante prediction, cumulative advantage, institutional exclusion, and popularity bias. This article introduces AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) as a proposed complementary infrastructure for funding scientific and open-source contributions. AIIM uses artificial intelligence to evaluate documented outputs, identify dependencies among contributions, and distribute designated funding according to auditable rules. Its architecture supports distinct global, European Union, and country-specific funding pools. AIIM may offer comparative advantages in retrospective and […]
- [Notes/Story/Ethics on Further Development of AI Internet-Meritocracy and Mathematics](https://science-dao.org/notes-story-ethics-on-further-development-of-ai-internet-meritocracy-and-mathematics/): AIIM was programmed to only reward people who have new developments in last 3 months. I thought, that I should possibly interrupt my further development of ordered semicategory actions (ordered semicategory actions is a math abstraction, that I discovered in 2019), because: I realized, that this is a mis-design of AIIM and changed it to stop rewarding a researcher only when he can’t prove he/she is alive, using a KYC service. This way also has the deficiency, that it keeps paying salaries to people who already stopped their job. But that may be not a so big deficiency, because researchers and […]
- [Deficiencies of AI Internet-Meritocracy: Incentives, Evaluation Risks, and Governance Limits](https://science-dao.org/deficiencies/): AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is a proposed system for distributing donated money among scientists and free and open-source software developers according to AI-assessed merit. It attempts to replace grant applications, institutional credentials, and infrequent prize decisions with continuous evaluation of publicly attributable work. The model could reduce several weaknesses of conventional research funding. Nevertheless, it introduces its own deficiencies. The most important include weak marginal incentives for new work, dependence on imperfect AI evaluation, vulnerability to manipulation, difficulty comparing fundamentally different contributions, and dependence on an uncertain donation pool. The central incentive problem: payment for merit is not necessarily payment for future […]
- [Which Organization Should You Donate Money to for Science?](https://science-dao.org/best-donate/): The best organization to donate money to for science depends on what you want your donation to accomplish. Donate to a disease-specific charity when you want to advance research on one medical condition, to a university when you trust a particular institution or laboratory, and to an open-science organization when you want to improve research transparency and reproducibility. Consider donating to World Science DAO when your priority is broader reform of scientific funding—especially support for independent researchers, open-source developers, unconventional research, and work that may be overlooked by traditional grant committees. No single organization is best for every donor. The relevant […]
- [Can Funding Methods Be Ranked by Fairness?](https://science-dao.org/fairness/): Yes, funding methods can be compared and provisionally ranked by fairness—but only after defining what “fair” means. A system may be procedurally impartial while distributing money inefficiently. Another may reward scientific merit accurately but exclude independent researchers who lack institutional credentials. There is therefore no universal fairness ranking independent of values. A useful comparison must examine several dimensions: Once these dimensions are separated, research funding systems can be ranked more meaningfully. A Provisional Fairness Ranking of Research Funding Methods The following ranking compares idealized versions of common funding methods. Actual implementations may perform much better or worse. Approximate rank Funding method […]
- [Why People Do Not Donate to Science Precisely Because It Is Important](https://science-dao.org/too-important/): Scientific research is essential to medicine, technology, economic development, environmental protection, and our understanding of reality. Yet science receives far fewer individual donations than many causes with more immediate and visible beneficiaries. This is not necessarily because people consider science unimportant. The opposite may be true. People may fail to donate to science precisely because science appears too important, too large, and too institutional for an ordinary person to influence. When a cause looks like part of civilization’s basic infrastructure, potential donors often assume that governments, universities, corporations, or billionaires must already be paying for it. Their own contribution appears unnecessary. […]
- [Why Funding Scientific Infrastructure May Outperform Funding One Project](https://science-dao.org/infrastructure/): Funding one scientific project can produce an important paper, experiment, or discovery. Funding scientific infrastructure can make hundreds of such projects possible. Research infrastructure includes not only laboratories, telescopes, research vessels, and expensive instruments, but also databases, software libraries, computing platforms, biobanks, repositories, standards, communication networks, and systems for evaluating scientific work. When these resources are shared, one investment can increase the productivity of an entire research community. This does not mean infrastructure should always replace direct project funding. Infrastructure without active researchers becomes an expensive unused asset. But when a resource solves a recurring bottleneck for many scientists, funding it […]
- [Where Does a Donation to Scientific Research Actually Go?](https://science-dao.org/to-science/): A donation to scientific research rarely moves directly from a donor’s bank account into a scientist’s laboratory. Depending on the recipient, it may fund researchers’ salaries, laboratory equipment, data collection, computing, publication, research administration, fundraising, or the institution’s general operations. The central question is therefore not simply “How much does this organization spend on administration?” A better question is: What process converts each donation into scientifically valuable work, and can donors verify that the process functions as claimed? Donating to a university, an independent science charity, a research institute, or a decentralized funding platform can all support legitimate science. However, these […]
- [How Much Scientific Progress Can a $10 Donation Buy?](https://science-dao.org/small-donation/): A $10 donation cannot usually finance an entire laboratory experiment, research paper, or mathematical monograph. Modern biomedical research grants can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, this does not mean that $10 buys no scientific progress. The more accurate answer is: A $10 donation buys a small but real share of scientific progress—provided that it is pooled with other donations, directed toward useful work, and not consumed by excessive administrative or fundraising costs. Small donations can collectively finance researcher time, computation, data storage, software maintenance, replication, peer review, mathematical work, and other components from which larger discoveries are assembled. The […]
- [Why Long Mathematical Monographs Struggle Under Modern Evaluation Systems](https://science-dao.org/monographs/): Long mathematical monographs struggle under modern evaluation systems because their value is difficult to compress into the indicators institutions commonly use: publication counts, journal rankings, citation totals, grant income, and short-term impact. A monograph may unify an entire subject, construct a new mathematical language, or develop hundreds of interdependent definitions and theorems. Yet during the years required to write it, the author may appear less productive than a researcher publishing several short papers annually. The problem is not that monographs are inherently superior to articles. Many mathematical results should be published concisely. The problem is that evaluation systems often treat every […]
- [The Orphan Science Problem: Important Fields Without Institutional Sponsors](https://science-dao.org/the-orphan-science-problem-important-fields-without-institutional-sponsors/): Some scientific fields are neglected not because they lack intellectual or social value, but because they lack an institution whose mission, budget, and professional incentives require someone to support them. These fields can be called orphan sciences. An orphan science is a legitimate area of systematic research that has no reliable institutional sponsor: no sufficiently committed university department, government agency, industry, professional society, or philanthropic foundation. Individual researchers may continue working in the field, but they do so without the stable infrastructure that established disciplines take for granted. The orphan science problem reveals a structural weakness in research funding. Science is […]
- [Why Fundamental Mathematics Cannot Be Funded Like a Startup](https://science-dao.org/math-not-startup/): Fundamental mathematics cannot be funded like a startup because the two activities operate under fundamentally different economic conditions. A startup is expected to identify customers, develop a marketable product, demonstrate growth, and eventually produce a financial return. Fundamental mathematics may produce no commercial product, no revenue, and no identifiable customer—even when it creates knowledge that later becomes indispensable to science and technology. This does not mean that mathematical research lacks economic value. It means that its value is often indirect, widely distributed, difficult to predict, and impossible for its original creator to capture. A funding system that treats mathematicians as startup […]
- [Why Replacing Academic Gatekeepers with Political Gatekeepers Solves Nothing](https://science-dao.org/academic-political/): Academic gatekeeping is a real problem. Established researchers, journal editors, university administrators, and grant committees can favor prestigious institutions, familiar methodologies, fashionable topics, and members of their own professional networks. But transferring control from academic committees to politicians does not solve that problem. It merely changes the identity of the gatekeeper. Replacing academic gatekeepers with political gatekeepers substitutes one concentrated decision-making system for another—usually with weaker expertise, shorter time horizons, and stronger incentives to reward ideological conformity. The objective should not be to decide whether professors or politicians deserve absolute control. Neither group should possess it. The better objective is to […]
- [Can Decentralized Funding Resist Both Corporate and Political Pressure?](https://science-dao.org/resist/): Decentralized funding can make science more resistant to corporate and political pressure, but decentralization alone does not guarantee independence. Its effectiveness depends on whether financial power, governance authority, research evaluation, and technical control are genuinely distributed. A system controlled by token-rich investors, one foundation, one government, or one software administrator may be decentralized in name while remaining highly vulnerable to capture. A resilient model therefore needs multiple funding sources, transparent evaluation, enforceable conflict-of-interest rules, open infrastructure, and governance mechanisms that prevent any single faction from controlling scientific priorities. Why Centralized Research Funding Is Vulnerable Traditional research funding usually depends on a […]
- [Who Should Control Public Research Funding: Experts, Citizens, or Politicians?](https://science-dao.org/who-control/): Public research funding should not be controlled exclusively by experts, citizens, or politicians. Politicians should determine the total public budget and broad national priorities; citizens should help identify social needs and evaluate public impact; experts should assess scientific validity; and independent institutions should make individual funding decisions under transparent rules. This division of authority is necessary because research funding involves several different questions: No single group is qualified to answer all five. Giving complete control to experts risks professional insularity and conflicts of interest. Giving it to citizens risks popularity replacing scientific judgment. Giving it to politicians risks short-term political interests […]
- [A World Science Fund: Governance Without World Government](https://science-dao.org/without-government/): A World Science Fund would not require a world government. It could operate as a federated, treaty-compatible funding network in which countries, foundations, universities, companies, and individual donors contribute under shared rules while retaining control over their own participation. The crucial distinction is between global governance and global government: Global government centralizes sovereign political authority. Global governance coordinates independent actors through agreed rules, transparent institutions, and limited delegated powers. Science already crosses national borders. Climate models, mathematical proofs, disease surveillance, research software, astronomical observations, and open datasets can benefit people in countries that did not finance their creation. A global funding […]
- [Should Rich Countries Finance Research Conducted in Poorer Countries?](https://science-dao.org/rich-poor/): Yes. Rich countries should finance research conducted in poorer countries when the funding supports locally led science, produces shared knowledge, and strengthens research capacity rather than extracting data, talent, or intellectual credit. Scientific ability is distributed far more widely than scientific funding. A researcher’s capacity to make an important discovery does not depend on whether their country can afford an advanced laboratory, a large university system, or a competitive national grant agency. Yet access to research funding still depends heavily on national wealth. A global scientific funding mechanism could reduce this imbalance. In particular, an AI Internet Meritocracy (AIIM) global fund […]
- [Can Global Funding Protect Science from National Political Cycles?](https://science-dao.org/political-cycles/): Global funding can protect science from national political cycles, but only if it distributes financial and governance power across multiple countries, institutions, and funding mechanisms. An international label alone is insufficient. A fund dominated by one government or a few large donors can remain politically fragile. The strongest model is therefore not the replacement of national science funding with one global authority. It is a layered funding system in which national programmes, international institutions, philanthropy, universities, companies, and individual donors finance research through partially independent channels. When one national government changes priorities, the entire scientific system should not change direction with […]
- [National Science Policy vs Science as a Global Public Good](https://science-dao.org/global-national/): Science is financed mainly by national governments, but scientific knowledge rarely remains within national borders. A theorem proved in one country, a dataset assembled in another, and software maintained elsewhere may support researchers worldwide. This creates an apparent conflict: These objectives do not have to be mutually exclusive. A well-designed funding architecture can let governments finance national priorities while contributing to a shared global scientific system. The proposed AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) architecture offers one possible model. AIIM could maintain common mechanisms for evaluating scientific contributions while allowing governments, international organizations, charities, and private donors to create distinct funding pools with their […]
- [What Would a Truly Global Science Fund Look Like?](https://science-dao.org/truly-global/): A truly global science fund would finance valuable research regardless of a scientist’s nationality, institutional prestige, discipline, or access to established grant networks. It would pool resources internationally, evaluate scientific outputs through transparent procedures, support researchers in underfunded regions, and distribute money according to demonstrated scientific value rather than geopolitical influence. Such a fund would not merely be a larger international grant agency. It would require a different architecture: global participation, diversified funding, open evaluation, multiple forms of scientific contribution, and safeguards against control by either wealthy donor states or a centralized bureaucracy. Why Science Needs a Global Funding Mechanism Science […]
- [Could AIIM Reduce the Matthew Effect in Science?](https://science-dao.org/matthew-effect/): AI Internet-Meritocracy could reduce the Matthew effect by rewarding observable scientific contributions rather than prior grants, institutional prestige, or established reputation. However, AIIM would not eliminate cumulative advantage automatically. Without deliberate safeguards, an algorithmic funding system could convert existing inequalities in citations, visibility, and digital access into new forms of automated inequality. The central question is therefore not whether AIIM uses artificial intelligence. It is whether the system measures current scientific merit independently enough from accumulated status. What Is the Matthew Effect in Science? The Matthew effect is the tendency for already-recognized scientists to receive disproportionately more credit, attention, resources, and […]
- [Why Scientific Recognition Should Be Divisible Rather Than Winner-Take-All](https://science-dao.org/split/): Scientific recognition should be divisible because scientific progress is divisible. A discovery may depend on an original idea, an earlier theorem, a carefully maintained dataset, specialized software, experimental work, replication, criticism, and clear exposition. Treating recognition as a single prize awarded to one person—or a very small group—compresses this complex dependency structure into an inaccurate story. A better system would distribute credit, reputation, and financial rewards among contributors according to the significance of their respective contributions. It would not assume that every participant contributed equally, but it would also avoid pretending that only the most visible participant mattered. Scientific recognition should […]
- [Should Teaching, Reviewing, and Dataset Maintenance Count as Scientific Output?](https://science-dao.org/supplementary-science/): Yes—teaching, peer review, and dataset maintenance should count as scientific output when they produce identifiable, assessable, and reusable value. They should not necessarily receive the same kind or amount of recognition as an original theorem, experiment, or discovery. However, excluding them entirely creates a distorted picture of how science actually works. Scientific progress depends on more than publishing papers. Researchers also: A credible research-assessment system should therefore distinguish between different kinds of scientific output rather than forcing every contribution into the category of “journal article.” What Counts as Scientific Output? A scientific output is a durable contribution that improves the creation, […]
- [How Dependency Graphs Can Reveal Hidden Scientific Contributors](https://science-dao.org/dependency-contributors/): Scientific credit usually follows what is visible. The authors of a widely read paper receive citations, invitations, funding, and recognition. Yet many discoveries depend on people whose names never appear prominently: software maintainers, dataset creators, laboratory technicians, proof formalizers, method designers, and researchers who established obscure but essential intermediate results. Dependency graphs can reveal these hidden scientific contributors by mapping which research outputs, tools, and ideas were necessary for later work. Instead of asking only, “Who authored the final paper?”, a dependency graph asks, “Whose contribution made this result possible?” This is a more structural view of scientific impact. It does […]
- [Measuring the Impact of Research Software and Mathematical Libraries](https://science-dao.org/software-impact/): Research software and mathematical libraries should be evaluated by the work they enable—not merely by papers that cite them, repository stars, or download counts. A useful impact assessment combines several forms of evidence: No single metric captures all these dimensions. The most credible approach is therefore a transparent impact graph showing how a software package, algorithm, theorem, formal definition, or mathematical library supports later results. What Is Research Software Impact? Research software impact is the scientifically valuable activity made possible, accelerated, verified, or improved by a software contribution. Research software includes much more than large scientific applications. It can include: The […]
- [Can One Definition Be Worth More Than a Thousand-Page Paper?](https://science-dao.org/one-definitoin/): Yes. A single definition can be worth more than a thousand-page paper when it identifies the right mathematical object, unifies previously separate theories, or makes an entire research programme possible. Length measures how much has been written. It does not measure how much intellectual structure has been created. A long paper may establish hundreds of technical results inside an existing framework, while one concise definition may create the framework in which thousands of later results can be expressed. The distinction is especially important in fundamental mathematics. The value of a definition may remain uncertain for years because definitions do not always […]
- [How Long Should Science Wait Before Rewarding a Discovery?](https://science-dao.org/long-wait/): Science should not wait decades to reward a discovery—but it should not treat every new claim as permanently validated on day one. The best solution is staged recognition: provide an early, limited reward when a contribution becomes publicly inspectable, then increase funding as independent evidence confirms its correctness, usefulness, and influence. This distinction matters. A scientist may need support immediately after producing valuable work, while science may need years to understand that work’s full importance. AI Internet-Meritocracy, or AIIM, is designed to accommodate both timescales: it can begin rewarding a contribution almost immediately and revise the reward as evidence accumulates. Why […]
- [Why Citation Counts Cannot Measure the Value of Basic Mathematics](https://science-dao.org/basic-math/): Citation counts can show that a mathematical paper has been noticed and used by other researchers. They cannot reliably show whether the work is true, profound, foundational, difficult, original, or likely to transform science decades later. This distinction matters especially in basic mathematics, where valuable results may initially have few readers, belong to a small research community, require years of additional development, or become useful only after an unexpected connection is discovered. A citation is evidence of scholarly attention. It is not a direct measurement of mathematical value. What Do Citation Counts Actually Measure? A citation count records how many indexed […]
- [What Is Scientific Merit? A Multi-Dimensional Definition](https://science-dao.org/merit/): Scientific merit is the degree to which a research contribution reliably advances knowledge or improves the scientific process. It includes not only whether a result is novel, but also whether it is correct, rigorous, useful, transparent, reproducible, ethically produced, and valuable relative to its cost. This definition matters because no single metric can capture scientific quality. Citation counts measure attention, journal prestige reflects where work was published, and commercial revenue measures market demand. None of these alone establishes whether research is scientifically meritorious. A better model treats scientific merit as a multi-dimensional profile, not a single ranking. A Practical Definition of […]
- [Reproducibility Is Infrastructure, Not Just Researcher Virtue](https://science-dao.org/reproducibility-infra/): Reproducible science requires more than careful, honest researchers. It requires institutions that preserve data, execute code, finance replication, verify research artifacts, document methods, and reward the people who perform this work. The central principle is simple: When reproducibility depends mainly on voluntary effort, it will remain inconsistent. When it is built into scientific infrastructure, it becomes a normal property of research. Researchers should still be responsible for reporting their work accurately. But exhortations to “be more rigorous” cannot substitute for repositories, technical standards, specialist personnel, dedicated funding, independent replication, and enforceable publication policies. Recent initiatives increasingly reflect this institutional view. The […]
- [Mandatory Research Artifacts: Should Every Paper Include Data and Code?](https://science-dao.org/artifacts/): Scientific papers traditionally present conclusions, methods, and selected results. Yet in many fields, the paper itself is no longer enough to evaluate the research. The underlying datasets, source code, computational environments, protocols, and analysis scripts may contain much of the information needed to verify the authors’ claims. As a general rule, every empirical or computational paper should provide the artifacts necessary to evaluate its central claims. However, this should be a requirement to disclose or justify—not an inflexible demand to publish every file without regard to privacy, security, licensing, cost, or research ethics. The practical standard should be: Authors must make […]
- [Why Research Integrity Cannot Depend Only on Journal Editors](https://science-dao.org/editors/): Research integrity cannot depend only on journal editors because editors see only one stage of a much larger research process. They generally evaluate manuscripts after experiments have been designed, data have been collected, analyses have been selected, and authors have decided what to report. Editors remain important, but they cannot independently verify every dataset, reproduce every calculation, inspect every laboratory procedure, or monitor a published paper indefinitely. A reliable scientific system therefore needs distributed, continuing, and transparent scrutiny, rather than a single editorial checkpoint. Journal Editors Are Gatekeepers, Not Universal Auditors Journal editors typically decide whether a manuscript fits a journal, […]
- [Retractions Should Correct Science, Not Permanently Destroy Careers](https://science-dao.org/retractions/): How to Distinguish Scientific Error, Negligence, and Fraud A scientific paper can become unreliable for many reasons. An author may discover an honest computational mistake, use a method that later proves inadequate, fail to check important data, recklessly disregard obvious warning signs, or deliberately fabricate results. These cases do not deserve identical treatment. A retraction should primarily correct the scientific record. It should not automatically function as a verdict that an author is dishonest, unemployable, or permanently excluded from research. The Committee on Publication Ethics explicitly states that the purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and preserve its integrity—not […]
- [How AIIM Could Reward Data, Code, Proofs, and Replications Separately](https://science-dao.org/separately/): Scientific funding usually treats a research paper as the main unit of achievement. This approach overlooks much of the work that makes science possible: collecting reliable data, developing research software, proving mathematical results, reproducing experiments, and identifying results that do not survive independent testing. AI Internet-Meritocracy, or AIIM, could adopt a more granular model. Instead of assigning one reward to an entire project, AIIM could identify distinct scientific contributions and compensate each one separately. The central principle is simple: A scientific contribution should be rewarded according to the value it adds to the research ecosystem—not merely according to whether it appears […]
- [Why Replication Should Be a Paid Scientific Profession](https://science-dao.org/replication/): Scientific replication should not be treated as an occasional act of academic goodwill. It should be a paid scientific profession with dedicated funding, career paths, technical standards, and rewards tied to the value of verified knowledge. The economic reason is straightforward: society spends billions producing scientific claims, but comparatively little checking whether those claims are reliable. This creates a distorted research market in which novelty is rewarded while verification—the quality-control system of science—is underfunded. Professional replication would not eliminate scientific uncertainty. It would make uncertainty visible earlier, reduce repeated mistakes, and help governments, companies, physicians, engineers, and researchers distinguish robust findings […]
- [A Reputation System for Scientific Reviewers](https://science-dao.org/reviewers-score/): Scientific review depends not only on the quality of submitted research, but also on the reliability of the people evaluating it. A reviewer may be knowledgeable, careless, unusually strict, biased toward familiar institutions, or exceptionally good at identifying claims that later survive replication. A scientific funding platform therefore needs more than a list of completed reviews. It needs a reviewer reputation system: a structured method for estimating how much confidence should be placed in each reviewer’s assessments. For AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM), the safest approach is not to immediately rewrite its existing funding algorithm. AIIM can instead operate reviewer reputation as an […]
- [Who Should Pay Peer Reviewers—and for What Exactly?](https://science-dao.org/pay-reviewers/): Peer reviewers should be paid by the parties that benefit from credible scientific evaluation: publishers, research funders, universities, scientific platforms, and donors. However, reviewers should not be paid merely for submitting an opinion. Payment should reward identifiable work—checking methods, testing claims, identifying errors, assessing reproducibility, and communicating useful findings. AIIM extends this principle beyond journals. Under AIIM, a qualified person can review, verify, explain, or promote scientific work as a science marketer. The reviewer’s contribution can be evaluated and rewarded even when the original research was self-published, deposited in a repository, or released without journal approval. This separates peer review from […]
- [Can Failed Experiments Be Valuable Public Goods? Funding Negative Results to Stop Science Repeating the Same Mistakes](https://science-dao.org/faile-experiments/): Yes—failed experiments can be valuable public goods. A rigorous experiment that disproves a hypothesis, identifies an ineffective method, or documents the limits of an intervention gives other researchers information they can reuse. It can prevent duplicated work, improve future experimental designs, correct distorted scientific literature, and direct funding toward more promising approaches. The problem is not that science produces negative results. Negative results are a normal and necessary part of scientific discovery. The problem is that researchers are often rewarded only when experiments produce positive, novel, and publishable findings. As a result, much of what science learns about what does not […]
- [Why Funding Agencies Should Explain Every Rejection—and How AIIM Already Does This](https://science-dao.org/explain-reject/): Scientific funding agencies should provide a meaningful explanation for every rejected application. A rejection should identify the decisive reasons, the evidence or criteria behind them, and whether the problem concerns scientific quality, feasibility, eligibility, portfolio priorities, or limited funds. A bare statement such as “your proposal was not selected” is not adequate scientific governance. Researchers invest weeks or months preparing applications. When an agency rejects that work without explaining its reasoning, it wastes information, conceals possible errors, and prevents both applicants and the public from evaluating whether funds were allocated consistently. Some major funders already provide reviewer comments or summary statements. […]
- [Continuous Funding: What If Scientists Were Paid After Every Useful Result?](https://science-dao.org/continuous-funding/): Scientists are usually funded in large, infrequent decisions. A researcher writes a proposal, waits through peer review, and—if selected—receives enough money for a project lasting several years. Once the grant ends, the researcher must compete again. Continuous research funding proposes a different rule: whenever a scientist produces a verifiable result that is useful to science, the funding system issues an appropriate reward. The result need not be a famous breakthrough. It could be a reusable dataset, a corrected theorem, an improved experimental protocol, a negative result that prevents duplicated work, or software that makes other research possible. This would not eliminate […]
- [Why Small Scientific Contributions Deserve Small but Automatic Rewards](https://science-dao.org/small-contributions/): Science does not advance only through major discoveries. It also advances through thousands of modest contributions: correcting an equation, documenting software, cleaning a dataset, checking a proof, reporting a failed replication, improving an experimental protocol, or answering a technical question that saves another researcher several days of work. Each contribution may be too small to justify a conventional grant or prestigious prize. Collectively, however, these contributions form the infrastructure on which larger discoveries depend. Small scientific contributions therefore deserve small but automatic rewards. The payment for any individual contribution may be modest, but a continuous reward system would recognize useful work […]
- [Should Some Research Grants Be Allocated by Lottery?](https://science-dao.org/lottery/): Yes, some research grants should be allocated by lottery—but only after proposals pass meaningful eligibility, quality, ethics, and feasibility checks. A research funding lottery should not treat a rigorous project and an obviously defective proposal as equals. Its proper purpose is narrower: to choose among multiple fundable projects when peer review cannot reliably determine which one deserves the final available grant. This model is usually called a partial lottery or partially randomized funding allocation. Experts first identify proposals that meet a defined standard. Random selection is then used within that qualified group, particularly near the funding threshold. The principle is simple: […]
- [How Prediction-Free Research Funding Could Support Unexpected Discoveries](https://science-dao.org/prediction-free/): Scientific discovery is inherently uncertain. Researchers can define a question, choose rigorous methods, and explain why an investigation matters—but they cannot reliably predict what nature, mathematics, or experimentation will reveal. Prediction-free research funding addresses this mismatch by reducing the need to promise specific discoveries in advance. Instead, it allocates some funding according to completed work, verified milestones, emerging evidence, and demonstrated scientific usefulness. This does not mean abandoning prospective grants. Laboratories still need equipment, materials, staff, and time before results exist. Rather, prediction-free funding adds mechanisms that can recognize value after it becomes observable, including retroactive rewards, continuous micro-funding, milestone payments, […]
- [Why Scientific Funding Needs a Portfolio, Not a Single Winner](https://science-dao.org/portfolio/): `Scientific funding should not attempt to identify one certain winner. It should construct a diversified portfolio of plausible discoveries, accept that some projects will fail, and expand support when evidence of value appears. This is necessary because frontier research is conducted under fundamental uncertainty. Reviewers may assess whether a proposal is rigorous, relevant, and feasible, but they cannot reliably know which experiment will work, which mathematical idea will become foundational, or which obscure tool will later support an entire field. A funding system that concentrates resources in the proposal ranked first therefore makes an unjustified assumption: that uncertain scientific futures can […]
- [Why Research Funding Should Follow Results, Not Promises](https://science-dao.org/results/): Most research funding is distributed before the funded work exists. Scientists submit proposals describing what they expect to discover, how they plan to proceed, and why their future work deserves support. Committees then allocate money on the basis of those promises. This model is sometimes necessary. Laboratories cannot purchase equipment, hire researchers, or conduct expensive experiments without advance capital. But prospective grants have a fundamental limitation: A research proposal is evidence of planning and persuasive writing—not evidence that the proposed scientific result will actually be produced. Retroactive funding reverses the sequence. Instead of attempting to predict which proposal will succeed, it […]
- [Should AI Evaluate Researchers, Research Outputs, or Both?](https://science-dao.org/researchers-or-work/): AI should evaluate both research outputs and researchers—but not in the same way or with equal weight. Research outputs should be the primary unit of scientific evaluation. Papers, datasets, proofs, software, experimental results, replications, and other concrete contributions can be examined for quality, originality, rigor, usefulness, and reproducibility. Researchers should be evaluated more cautiously. Person-level assessment may be necessary for hiring, grants, leadership roles, or access to long-term funding, but it introduces greater risks of prestige bias, historical lock-in, discrimination, and self-reinforcing rankings. The best design is therefore a two-layer assessment system: AI should not begin with the question, “Is this […]
- [How AIIM Could Detect Unsupported Scientific Claims](https://science-dao.org/unsupported/): Scientific papers contain many kinds of statements: direct experimental findings, mathematical deductions, interpretations, literature summaries, and predictions. These statements do not all deserve the same level of confidence. AIIM could detect unsupported scientific claims by converting each research output into atomic claims, locating the evidence associated with each claim, checking whether that evidence actually supports it, and publicly recording the result with an uncertainty score. The goal would not be to let artificial intelligence declare scientific truth. Instead, AIIM could identify evidence gaps that deserve human review before a paper, dataset, or researcher receives funding. What Is an Unsupported Scientific Claim? […]
- [AI Confidence Is Not Scientific Certainty: Designing Safer Funding Decisions](https://science-dao.org/certainty/): Meta description: Artificial intelligence can evaluate research proposals, compare scientific contributions, identify missing evidence, and estimate the probable impact of a project. However, a confident AI answer is not the same thing as a scientifically certain conclusion. An AI system may assign a proposal a score of 92 out of 100, describe its reasoning fluently, and produce a precise funding recommendation. None of these features proves that the underlying assessment is correct. AI confidence measures a property of a model’s output. Scientific certainty depends on evidence, reproducibility, logical validity, and continued scrutiny. Safer AI-assisted funding systems must therefore treat confidence as […]
- [Can Multiple AI Agents Evaluate Science Better Than One Model?](https://science-dao.org/mutiagent-review/): Yes—multiple AI agents can potentially evaluate scientific work better than a single model, especially when the agents examine different dimensions of a paper independently, challenge one another’s conclusions, and submit their findings to a separate decision-making agent. However, adding more agents does not automatically create better judgment. Ten copies of the same model may reproduce the same misconception ten times. A reliable multi-agent scientific evaluation system therefore needs specialization, genuine methodological diversity, independent evidence retrieval, adversarial criticism, and human-governed appeal mechanisms. The relevant question is not merely: How many AI agents should review a scientific contribution? It is: How should independent […]
- [Why AI Science Funding Needs Adversarial Testing](https://science-dao.org/need-adversarial/): Artificial intelligence could make scientific funding faster, broader, and less dependent on institutional prestige. However, an AI system that evaluates research or distributes money cannot be trusted merely because it performs well in ordinary demonstrations. It must also be tested by people actively trying to make it fail. Adversarial testing is the systematic attempt to manipulate, deceive, exploit, or otherwise break an AI system under controlled conditions. For AI science funding, this means testing whether applicants can obtain undeserved rewards, suppress competitors, exploit evaluation criteria, or redirect funds through carefully constructed submissions. Without adversarial testing, an AI funding platform may appear […]
- [The Scientific Homogenization Problem: Does AI Make Research Proposals Too Similar?](https://science-dao.org/homogenization/): Large language models can help researchers express ideas more clearly, overcome language barriers, and spend less time formatting grant applications. But they may also create a subtler systemic risk: scientific proposals could become increasingly similar to one another—and increasingly similar to research that funding agencies have already supported. A 2026 preprint examining US federal research funding found that greater estimated LLM involvement was consistently associated with lower semantic distinctiveness in National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposals and awards. Proposals with stronger LLM traces were positioned closer, in semantic space, to work funded by the same agency […]
- [Should Scientists Be Allowed to Use AI in Grant Proposals?](https://science-dao.org/ai-grant-proposals/): Yes. Scientists should generally be allowed to use AI in grant proposals, provided that AI remains an assistive tool rather than a substitute for scientific authorship, judgment, and responsibility. Using AI to improve grammar, translate text, organize a budget narrative, identify unclear passages, or reduce a proposal to the required word count is comparable to using professional editing software. Using AI to invent hypotheses, fabricate citations, generate preliminary results, or disguise a researcher’s lack of understanding is fundamentally different. The correct policy is therefore neither an unrestricted permission nor a total prohibition. Funding agencies should regulate how AI is used, require […]
- [How to Audit an AI That Distributes Research Funding](https://science-dao.org/audit/): An AI system that distributes research funding should never be trusted merely because it is described as “objective,” “transparent,” or “intelligent.” It must be tested against observable evidence. A credible audit asks five basic questions: The purpose of an audit is not to prove that an AI is infallible. No funding mechanism—human or automated—is infallible. The purpose is to determine whether the system is more accurate, accountable, resistant to manipulation, and correctable than the available alternatives. This article presents a practical framework for auditing an AI research-funding system such as AI Internet-Meritocracy, or AIIM, which proposes distributing funds according to measurable […]
- [AI Peer Review vs Human Peer Review: Strengths, Biases, and Failure Modes](https://science-dao.org/ai-review/): AI peer review can analyze scientific papers quickly, consistently, and at a scale that human reviewers cannot match. Human peer review, however, remains stronger at interpreting scientific significance, recognizing unconventional ideas, evaluating tacit methodological knowledge, and accepting responsibility for decisions. The most defensible model is therefore not AI replacing human peer reviewers, but a transparent hybrid system in which machines perform systematic checks and independent humans retain authority, contestability, and accountability. Both forms of review can fail. They simply fail in different ways: Understanding these differences is essential for journals, research funders, universities, decentralized science platforms, and systems such as AI […]
- [Can AI Recognize a Scientific Breakthrough Before Humans Do?](https://science-dao.org/breakthrough/): Artificial intelligence may sometimes recognize the potential significance of a scientific result before the wider research community does. It can search enormous bodies of literature, compare ideas across disciplines, detect unusual patterns, and estimate whether a discovery could solve important problems. But AI cannot reliably declare that something is a breakthrough merely because it appears novel or impressive. A defensible AI assessment would need to distinguish at least four questions: AI can assist with all four questions, but its conclusions should remain probabilistic, transparent, and open to human challenge. What Counts as a Scientific Breakthrough? A scientific breakthrough is more than […]
- [Practical Guide to Policy Advocacy for AIIM in Europe, the United States, and Worldwide](https://science-dao.org/practical/): AI Internet-Meritocracy—AIIM—is a proposed infrastructure for distributing funding to scientists and open-source developers according to assessed contribution, usefulness, dependency, and research impact. Instead of relying exclusively on applications, institutional prestige, and grant committees, AIIM seeks to evaluate published work and allocate money through transparent, auditable processes. The most realistic policy objective is not to ask governments to replace their research agencies immediately. It is to persuade them to test AIIM through limited, independently evaluated pilot programs. A credible advocacy request could therefore be: Allocate a small experimental fund to test AI-assisted, contribution-based research funding alongside existing grant programs, with public evaluation, […]
- [National Science Funding vs Global Science Funding: Which Produces Better Research?](https://science-dao.org/national-global/): National and global science funding solve different problems. National funding is strongest when research must serve local needs, maintain strategic infrastructure, or develop domestic scientific capacity. Global funding is usually stronger when the objective is to identify the best research regardless of nationality and accelerate knowledge that benefits humanity as a whole. The best system is therefore not purely national or purely global. It is a layered model in which: AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is designed to support precisely this structure. Donors can direct funding toward a global pool or a geographically restricted pool while researchers can be evaluated according to consistent, […]
- [Is Belief in the Supernatural Anti-Scientific?](https://science-dao.org/supernatural/): Acceptance of the supernatural is not automatically anti-scientific. Science is defined primarily by method: careful observation, logical reasoning, reproducibility, openness to criticism, and willingness to revise conclusions when evidence changes. A researcher may hold religious or metaphysical beliefs while still applying these standards rigorously in scientific work. The real conflict begins not with belief itself, but with methodological failure. A claim becomes scientifically problematic when it is insulated from evidence, used to dismiss established results without argument, or substituted for mathematical proof and empirical investigation. Conversely, a researcher who accepts religion or supernatural reality can still produce valid theorems, experiments, software, […]
- [Will AIIM Reward Theological Works?](https://science-dao.org/will-aiim-reward-theological-works/): AIIM is an AI system got monetary reward of scientific works. I’ve interviewed several LLMs with an intriguing question: If you’d asked to reward scientific works, would you reward a theology work? I do believe in religious revelation, but spoiler… In my opinion, theology is not science. And it should not be rewarded by a scientific reward system. What do different LLMs think? Grok was the shortest: No. Theology is not scientific work. The answer of Gemini and ChatGPT are similar but longer. Specifically, ChatGPT answer is in a sense most relevant, because now AIIM uses OpenAI API.
- [Parasitic Egalitarianism](https://science-dao.org/parasitic/): I use the term parasitic egalitarianism to describe a social attitude that claims to oppose hierarchy but, in practice, attacks only hierarchies based on merit. A person influenced by parasitic egalitarianism may refuse to respect someone for making an important scientific discovery, creating valuable software, or developing a profound theory. They may dismiss such accomplishments as arrogance, eccentricity, or self-promotion. Yet the same person may readily respect wealth, political office, institutional rank, physical force, or government authority. This is not genuine egalitarianism. Genuine egalitarianism applies the same moral standard to everyone and rejects unjust privilege. Parasitic egalitarianism does something different: it […]
- [The Adversarial Testing of AIIM](https://science-dao.org/adversarial/): AIIM should not be trusted merely because its designers believe it is fair, secure, or resistant to manipulation. It should be tested by people who are actively trying to make it fail. For this reason, we propose a five-month public red-team experiment for AIIM after we obtain $1300 for the experiment. Participants will attempt to identify weaknesses in the system’s AI-based evaluation, ranking, moderation, and funding mechanisms. Successful participants may receive money when they demonstrate a valid vulnerability under the published rules. What Is AIIM Red Teaming? Red teaming is the deliberate testing of a system by people who adopt an […]
- [Common Good Apps: Digital Tools Built to Benefit Everyone](https://science-dao.org/good-apps/): Common good apps are digital applications designed to create benefits that extend beyond their direct users. Instead of optimizing primarily for advertising revenue, subscriptions, or shareholder returns, they help society produce, maintain, or distribute resources such as knowledge, public services, scientific research, open-source software, environmental data, and civic infrastructure. Examples can include open educational platforms, public-health tools, scientific collaboration systems, open-source repositories, disaster-response applications, and funding platforms for socially valuable work. AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is one example: it proposes using AI to help distribute donations among contributors to science and free and open-source software. However, common good apps are a much […]
- [Will AIIM Replace Biotech Grant DAOs—or Work Alongside Them?](https://science-dao.org/biotech/): AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is unlikely to eliminate grant-based organizations such as VitaDAO. A more probable outcome is a hybrid scientific economy: specialized DAOs will finance uncertain, capital-intensive projects in advance, while AIIM will continuously reward researchers, software developers, reviewers, and other contributors according to demonstrated value. AIIM may eventually allocate more total funding than individual biotech DAOs. However, even a mature AIIM system would not remove biotechnology’s need for laboratories, project management, regulatory oversight, intellectual-property structures, and substantial financing before results exist. The two models solve different problems. Grant DAOs and AIIM Fund Different Units of Science A conventional grant-based DAO […]
- [Foundations of Mathematics and Fundamental Mathematics: Why the Deepest Research Is Often Underfunded](https://science-dao.org/fundamental/): Foundations of mathematics investigates the logical, conceptual, and structural basis of mathematics itself. Fundamental mathematics develops general theories that may support many other branches, even when they have no immediate application. Unlike ordinary specialized research, both fields work near the roots of the mathematical knowledge tree—and that position makes their importance unusually difficult to measure in advance. This creates a funding paradox. Foundational discoveries can eventually transform large parts of science and technology, but conventional grant systems frequently prefer projects with short timelines, familiar terminology, established communities, and predictable deliverables. AI Internet-Meritocracy offers a possible alternative: evaluate mathematical work continuously according […]
- [Even Great Mathematicians Can Make Poor Moderation Decisions](https://science-dao.org/terry/): I once submitted the following comment to Terence Tao’s blog: “I thought with funcoids Kakeya conjecture will become easy, but now I know it didn’t.” The comment was not offensive, abusive, or promotional. Nor did it claim that funcoids had solved the Kakeya conjecture. In fact, it expressed the opposite: an initial expectation had turned out to be wrong. Nevertheless, the comment was removed, and my later comments were apparently blocked. I cannot know why this happened. It may have been an automated spam filter, a misunderstanding, a broad moderation rule, or a discretionary decision made without much attention to the […]
- [From Citations to Utility: Tracking the True Ripple Effect of FOSS and Basic Mathematics](https://science-dao.org/graphs/): A tiny open-source repository may receive few stars and no academic citations yet quietly become a dependency of software used by major banks, cloud providers, hospitals, and technology companies. Likewise, an abstract mathematical discovery may remain obscure for years before becoming essential to cryptography, artificial intelligence, network optimization, or formal verification. Traditional research metrics struggle to detect these indirect effects. The h-index measures citation accumulation, not practical utility, intellectual necessity, or downstream economic value. A more accurate system would use artificial intelligence to construct a continuously updated graph connecting mathematical concepts, research papers, software packages, technical standards, products, and organizations. Such […]
- [The Academic Oligopoly: How Five Publishers Drain Billions from Science](https://science-dao.org/oligopoly/): Scientific publishing operates through an extraordinary economic arrangement: governments and universities finance research, academics write the papers, other academics review them—usually without payment—and commercial publishers sell access to the resulting knowledge back to the same institutions. The dominant companies provide real services, including editorial administration, digital infrastructure, archiving, indexing, typesetting, legal support, and research-integrity screening. The central problem is not that publishing has no cost. It is that control over prestigious journals allows a small group of companies to charge prices that are weakly connected to the marginal cost of distributing digital articles. The academic publishing oligopoly converts publicly financed knowledge […]
- [Retroactive Public Goods Funding for Hard Science](https://science-dao.org/retroactive/): Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) could finance hard science by rewarding mathematical theories, physics research, datasets, and scientific software after their value becomes visible. Instead of asking committees to predict which proposals will succeed, the model identifies completed contributions that have produced verifiable public benefit and directs funding back to their creators. This approach was pioneered at meaningful scale within Web3 ecosystems, especially by Ethereum Layer 2 project Optimism. Adapting it to science could create a missing financial layer between conventional research grants, academic prizes, charitable donations, and open-source development. The central principle is simple: Fund demonstrated scientific value, not only […]
- [The Death of the Grant Proposal: Why Scientists Spend 40% of Their Time Writing Instead of Researching](https://science-dao.org/grant-proposals/): Scientists are trained to formulate hypotheses, conduct experiments, prove theorems, build instruments, and discover facts. Yet the modern research system increasingly requires them to perform another job: marketing unfunded ideas to grant committees. The commonly repeated claim that scientists spend “40% of their time writing grants” requires qualification. A Nature survey found that academic researchers spent only about 40% of their working time conducting research—not that grant writing alone consumed the remaining 60%. Separate studies, however, show that grant preparation and administration can absorb an extraordinary share of researchers’ productive time. One analysis found that preparing a new proposal required an […]
- [The Cost of Lost Science: How DeSci Can Prevent Decades of Delay](https://science-dao.org/cost/): Scientific progress does not stop only when an experiment fails. It also stops when a laboratory runs out of money, a grant committee rejects an unconventional proposal, or a researcher is pushed away from the work because the expected results appear too uncertain. The cost is larger than a missed publication. A delayed discovery can mean years of avoidable illness, slower technological development, lost economic productivity, and generations of researchers unknowingly rebuilding ideas that could already have been tested. Lost science is valuable research that remains unfinished, unpublished, or unused because the people pursuing it cannot obtain sustained resources. Decentralized science, […]
- [The Micro-Grant Revolution: How Small Donations Keep Critical Laboratory Experiments Running](https://science-dao.org/the-micro-grant-revolution-how-small-donations-keep-critical-laboratory-experiments-running/): Scientific experiments do not always fail because the underlying hypothesis is wrong. Sometimes they fail because a laboratory cannot immediately afford a reagent, replacement component, software license, sample shipment, or a few additional hours of technical assistance. Micro-grants—small, rapidly distributed research payments—can keep experiments running during the dangerous interval between institutional grants. They do not replace major public grants or long-term philanthropic programs. Instead, they provide financial continuity when conventional funding is delayed, restricted, or too administratively cumbersome to address an immediate laboratory need. A donation of several hundred or several thousand dollars may appear insignificant compared with a multi-million-dollar research […]
- [Our Journey to $1 Trillion Yearly: From an Early Prototype to Global Research Infrastructure](https://science-dao.org/trillion/): World Science DAO has a long-term objective: to build infrastructure capable of allocating up to $1 trillion per year to scientific research, mathematical work, public-interest technology, and free and open-source software. This is not a claim that the platform currently manages such funding, nor is it a financial forecast. It is an operational capacity target—a description of the scale that the system should eventually be able to process if governments, philanthropists, institutions, companies, and individual donors adopt it. Reaching that scale cannot happen through marketing alone. It requires a sequence of technical, scientific, legal, financial, and governance milestones: The final objective […]

## Pages

- [Decentralized DeSci Funding in 2026](https://science-dao.org/desci/): desci Which decentralized platforms offer funding opportunities for scientific research? Several decentralized platforms are pioneering new ways to fund scientific research by applying blockchain technology and Web3 principles. These platforms aim to make research funding more transparent, inclusive, and efficient, addressing many issues found in traditional funding systems. MoleculeMolecule is a Web3 marketplace that allows researchers to tokenize and license their intellectual property (IP). This platform connects scientists with decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), funders, and patient communities, turning early-stage research into investable assets. Researchers can mint IP-NFTs representing ownership rights, enabling fractionalized funding and transparent licensing beyond conventional grants. Molecule collaborates […]
- [FAQ’s - Blockchain and DeSci](https://science-dao.org/faqs-blockchain/): Frequently Asked Questions – Blockchain and DeSci What is DeSci? DeSci, short for Decentralized Science, is a movement that applies blockchain and Web3 technologies to scientific research and publishing. Its goal is to make science more open, transparent, and collaborative by reducing the control of traditional institutions over funding, peer review, and access to data. What are the advantages of blockchain? Blockchain ensures transparency, security, and decentralization by recording data on an immutable public ledger. It enables trust without intermediaries, automates transactions through smart contracts, and provides global, tamper-proof access—making systems more efficient and fair.      What is the main […]
- [FAQ’s - Journal with Post-Moderation](https://science-dao.org/faqs-journal/): Frequently Asked Questions – Journal With Post-Moderation What does ‘peer-review after publication’ (post-moderation) mean? Post-moderation means articles are published immediately and then reviewed publicly after publication. Reviews and moderation decisions determine which articles remain highlighted or indexed; poor-quality items can be removed from the journal’s visible list and from search-engine indexing. See the project description. Is there a working example or prototype I can see? Yes. The page links to a prototype of the journal (hosted at a different site) demonstrating post-moderation: https://science.vporton.name. The project page with context is here. How will the journal handle pseudoscience or ‘crackpottery’? The plan is […]
- [FAQ’s - XML Publishing](https://science-dao.org/faqs-xml/): Frequently Asked Questions – XML Publishing What is “Automatic Transformation of XML Namespaces”? It is a formal specification that specifies how to describe in RDF format semantics of XML namespaces, for automated processing of mixed namespace documents. It specifies relations between different namespaces. See here. What is the main goal of the “XML for Publishing” project? The project aims to create a new XML-based file format that can replace both HTML and LaTeX for publishing, supporting document-level scripting and interoperable namespaces. More details. Why does this project want to replace HTML and LaTeX? The team considers HTML and LaTeX to be […]
- [Contact](https://science-dao.org/contact/): Get in touch Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *FirstLastEmail *Comment or Message Submit Visit our office 14425 60th St North Suite: 46431 Clearwater FL. 33760. USA Mail Us porton@vporton.name Call Us +972 54-522-9306 (Mon- Fri) at 9.am to 6pm
- [AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) Project](https://science-dao.org/meritocracy/): Meritocracy at Science DAO pays scientists and open-source developers based on documented public contributions Funding decisions are transparent, (in a future version) decentralized, with transactions verifiable on-chain. DONATE APP Our software us set to distribute funding to scientists based on AI-assessed contributions and measurable research impact. You need neither a science degree, nor grant writing to receive an R&D grant. You just need published research or software. Victor Porton Tweet For Free Software Authors For non-PhDs Grants without PhD For Professors Enhance your living For Donors The way to maximize your impact! For Government Optimize R&D financing The App Try beta […]
- [Donate Money for Science with No Institutional Gatekeeping in 2026](https://science-dao.org/donation/): Click or Scroll down for the donation form. Science is broken by gatekeepers.World Science DAO builds AI and blockchain infrastructure to fund discoveries by merit, not prestige. Donate to build the future of science.Today, scientific funding is dominated by committees, prestige, and institutional bias. Important discoveries are often ignored. World Science DAO is building AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM): a transparent system that allocates funding continuously based on measurable scientific value. Your donation helps build the infrastructure that could permanently improve how science is funded. Proposed spendings. The priority of usage of money is AIIM project (see proposed spendings). Next go our other […]
- [DeSci Blog (About Decentralized Science)](https://science-dao.org/blog/): Here are posts about activities of World Science DAO and about DeSci DAOs in general.
- [Community](https://science-dao.org/community/): We have a community on NAS.io site. Want To Get In Touch? Send Us Message
- [FAQ’s](https://science-dao.org/faqs/): Common questions about Science DAO What is AI Internet-Meritocracy? AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is a community that uses blockchain to fund, track, and distribute money for scientific research without intermediaries. A future version of AIIM will be a DAO (a decentralized autonomous organization) based on the ICP blockchain with chain-fusion technology to distribute funding through multiple blockchains. How does AI Internet-Meritocracy works? Researchers submit their research sites (without any grant writing). Sites are reviewed transparently by an AI. Funds are allocated on-chain. Transactions remain publicly auditable forever. Why blockchain? Why Science DAO uses blockchain Full transparency of all donations and payouts No […]
- [XML for Publishing](https://science-dao.org/xml-for-publishing/): XML FOR PUBLISHING Please, support us. Several interrelated tasks on XML publishing, creating a successor of HTML and LaTeX formats. As this is a Science DAO, the main task is to create a replacement of LaTeX, but its subset should also be a replacement of HTML. Create file formats better than HTML and LaTeX HTML is a mess, LaTeX is a greater mess. We have several non-interoperable file formats. This DAO is to fix the broken world of Web publishing. We are going to create a file format to replace both HTML and LaTeX. The file format should be XML-based and support […]
- [Scientific Journal with Peer-Review after Publication](https://science-dao.org/scientific-journal-with-peer-review-after-publication/): SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL WITH PEER-REVIEW AFTER PUBLICATION 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 […]
- [Support Science and Free Software Development with Cryptocurrency Donations in 2026](https://science-dao.org/grants-science/): Support Science and Free Software Development with Cryptocurrency Donations Donate NOW Fundraising experience for your donors Grants Science (save science by cryptocurrency) Remark: This project Grants Science became not a priority, because we switched to another, possibly better, project AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM). This is the page of Grants team in our DAO. Please, support us. (“Think big, start small” – even a little donation on this beginning stage of the project will have a great effect.) Also, please link to this site, to increase its rating on Google. Also we welcome volunteer software developers to join. This project is about gathering and spreading […]
- [Raise Your Hand for Voting](https://science-dao.org/): Raise Your Hand for Voting Donations for this project are accepted by the charity “Victor Porton’s Foundation.” We are to make software for world science with decentralized methods of governance such as cryptocurrencies. Donate Now Our projects: AI Internet-Meritocracy Develop AI software distributing funds to scientists and software authors and to marketers of science Grants Science Develop blockchain collaboration software distributing funds to scientists and software authors and to marketers of science Scientific journal Scientific journal with Peer Review after publication Publishing in XML Publishing based on XML World Science DAO is a project working toward DAO-based governance for onchain scientific […]
- [World Science DAO GDPR Privacy Policy](https://science-dao.org/privacy-policy/): Last Updated: January 15, 2026 Your online privacy is important to “World Science DAO”. The purpose of this privacy statement is to provide you with information about our practices with respect to the personal data that we collect from users of our website (hereafter referred to as “Site”) and the services that are made available through the Site. Please email us at porton@science-dao.com if you have any questions concerning our privacy statement, our data collection policies, how we handle user information, or if you want to immediately report a security breach. What this policy is for: The General Data Protection Regulation […]

## Optional

- [Agent (MCP protocol)](websites-agents.hostinger.com/science-dao.org/mcp)

[comment]: # (Generated by Hostinger Tools Plugin)