Scientific research is the engine of modern society, and its funding system has evolved over centuries.
However, resources are concentrated, gatekeeping prevails, and the public is increasingly excluded.
KAI proposes a blockchain-based framework where every step of research — from project proposal to experiments, publications, and peer review — is rewarded.
Funding flows are transparent, auditable, and participatory.
- 17–18th century: Patronage by nobles and donations to societies (e.g., Royal Society).
- 19th century: Nation-states began building public research funding systems.
- WWII/Cold War: Science became strategic; NSF founded (1950), Soviet Academy centralized funding.
- Public participation: e.g., the March of Dimes mobilized millions of small donations to fund polio vaccine research.
- Gatekeeping & monopoly: Senior scholars and institutions dominate resources.
- Mass education vs isolation: Despite expansion of higher education, decision-making is opaque.
- Misaligned incentives: Hidden labor (data curation, replication, review) is unrewarded.
- Lack of transparency: Bureaucracy and reimbursements consume resources, with little public oversight.
- Project proposals: Students and scientists submit proposals; verified PhDs vote to unlock seed funding.
- Experiments & contributions: Data/code/replication results minted as contribution NFTs (cNFTs).
- Publications & citations: Papers published on-chain, mirrored once to journals; citations bring continuous rewards.
- Peer review: Voting is perpetual, but rolling settlements by discipline (e.g., 5 years biology, 2 years CS).
- Public involvement: Citizens can fund via donations or token purchases; flows are fully transparent.
- Initial allocation: Each verified active PhD researcher (has a stable work position in University or institution) receives 1 basic voting right; published authors earn tokens.
- Minting: Passing proposals/papers → initiators receive tokens equal to vote count.
- Rewards:
- All voters share baseline participation rewards.
- Winners split the losing side’s stake.
- Contributors, replicators, reviewers also rewarded.
- Burning: Retractions, fake citations, fraud → tokens burned. This includes the voted token. For example, if someone get 100 token burned due to fraud, all his current and past voting will also be burned in average till 0.
- Identity: Students/PhDs/institutions use Soul-Bound Tokens (SBTs).
- Contributions: Minted as cNFTs, binding authorship and role.
- Governance: DAO manages parameters and discipline-specific cycles.
- Archiving: Hashes on-chain; raw data on IPFS/Arweave.
- Settlement: Rolling smart contracts distribute rewards and penalties.
| Platform | Focus | Limitation | KAI Difference | KAI Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VitaDAO | Longevity/biomedicine + IP | Domain-specific, IP-heavy | Cross-disciplinary, full cycle | Universality & inclusiveness |
| Molecule | IP-NFT marketplace | Focus on IP monetization only | Incentives from start to paper | Suitable for early/basic science |
| ValleyDAO | Synthetic biology DAO | Narrow scope (single discipline) | Configurable cross-disciplinary | Infrastructure for multiple DAOs |
| LabDAO | Tools & service sharing DAO | Marketplace, not governance | Governance & incentive layer | Complementary, ecosystem ready |
- First platform to reward the entire research lifecycle: proposal → experiment → publication → review.
- Cross-disciplinary flexibility: settlement cycles adapt to each field.
- Public participation: transparent, auditable funding flows.
- Integrity: perpetual voting, fraud punished with token burns.
- DeSci builders: smart contract & DAO governance developers.
- Researchers: early adopters to pilot funding & contributions on-chain.
- Investors/DAO partners: bootstrap treasury and governance ecosystem.
👉 Make science transparent, participatory, and fairly rewarded.