|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Quadratic Funding (QF) is widely promoted as a fair and democratic mechanism for allocating funding to public goods. It is especially popular in open-source software, crypto ecosystems, and decentralized science (DeSci). Platforms such as Gitcoin popularized QF by claiming it amplifies small donors and reflects community preferences.
However, after years of real-world use, Quadratic Funding has shown systemic flaws that limit its effectiveness for both scientific research and free software development. These problems are not implementation bugs; they stem from the core assumptions of QF itself.
This article explains what is wrong with Quadratic Funding—and why AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) offers a structurally better alternative for funding science and free software.
Quadratic Funding Rewards Popularity, Not Merit
Quadratic Funding optimizes for how many people donate, not for what is being built.
This creates predictable distortions:
- Free software projects with strong branding or large user bases dominate funding rounds.
- Infrastructure libraries, low-level tooling, and foundational research receive far less support.
- Independent developers and researchers without marketing reach are marginalized.
In both science and free software, the most important work is often invisible, unglamorous, and technically deep. QF systematically underfunds exactly this kind of contribution.
Quadratic Funding Is Highly Gameable
Despite repeated attempts to mitigate abuse, QF remains vulnerable to manipulation:
- Sybil attacks via fake or coordinated identities
- Donation splitting to inflate matching
- Private collusion within developer or research communities
- Off-platform incentives to coordinate donations
As matching pools grow, the incentive to exploit QF increases. This is especially damaging in free software ecosystems, where small funding differences can determine whether critical maintenance work survives or dies.
QF assumes honest participation at scale—an assumption that fails in practice.
QF Reinforces Existing Power Structures
Although marketed as democratic, Quadratic Funding frequently reinforces incumbency:
- Well-known open-source projects receive repeated funding rounds.
- New tools, alternative architectures, and experimental research struggle to gain visibility.
- Reputation signaling substitutes for actual technical or scientific merit.
In science, this mirrors academic gatekeeping.
In free software, it entrenches dominant projects while starving critical but less visible infrastructure.
Decentralization in funding does not automatically mean decentralization in outcomes.
Short-Termism and Funding Theater
Quadratic Funding favors projects that can:
- Run frequent campaigns
- Produce easily digestible updates
- Optimize for donor engagement and social media presence
This harms:
- Long-term scientific research
- Maintenance-heavy free software
- Security, refactoring, and foundational improvements
As a result, QF incentivizes performance over substance, turning funding into theater rather than sustained support for essential work.
Science and Free Software Need Evaluation, Not Voting
Neither science nor free software progresses through popularity contests.
Breakthroughs and critical infrastructure often come from:
- Minority viewpoints
- Deep, specialized expertise
- Independent contributors
- Work that is initially unpopular or misunderstood
Crowd signaling is a weak proxy for value in domains where correctness, rigor, and long-term impact matter more than visibility.
AIIM: A Better Alternative to Quadratic Funding
AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) replaces popularity-based funding with merit-based evaluation.
Instead of asking “How many people donated?”, AIIM asks:
- What did this person actually contribute?
- How original, difficult, and impactful is the work?
- How does it advance science or free software infrastructure?
- What is the long-term value, not just short-term attention?
AIIM is explicitly designed for:
- Scientific research
- Free and open-source software
- Independent developers and researchers
- Non-institutional contributors
Key Advantages of AIIM for Science and Free Software
- Merit-based evaluation instead of popularity metrics
- AI-assisted analysis of real contributions, not credentials
- Support for independent scientists and free software developers
- Resistance to Sybil attacks, since merit cannot be cheaply faked
- Long-term orientation, aligned with research and infrastructure development
AIIM funds people and contributions, not campaigns or social graphs.
Quadratic Funding vs AIIM
| Dimension | Quadratic Funding | AIIM |
|---|---|---|
| Core Signal | Number of donors | Quality of contribution |
| Vulnerability to Gaming | High | Low |
| Support for Independent Contributors | Weak | Strong |
| Fit for Free Software Infrastructure | Poor | Strong |
| Fit for Long-Term Science | Poor | Native |
| Incentive Structure | Marketing & visibility | Merit & impact |
The Future of Funding Public Goods
Quadratic Funding was a useful experiment. It demonstrated that communities want to fund public goods—but it also exposed the limits of crowd-based allocation.
For science and free software, the next step is not refining QF mechanics, but changing the paradigm:
- From voting to evaluation
- From popularity to merit
- From credentials to contributions
Call to Action: Support AI Internet-Meritocracy
If you believe science and free software should be funded based on actual intellectual and technical merit, not social reach or marketing skill, AIIM needs your support.
👉 Donate to help build AI Internet-Meritocracy
Your contribution helps create a funding system where scientists and free software developers are rewarded for real work—not popularity.