How? How exactly a public critic destroys the project? Your field is science research, your breakthrough farms critics on daily basis. And how exactly revealing who is this world renowned scientist can initiate an attack on "science" side affect your crypto project? What you propose is a funding for your science project, revealing who behind the team will not affect your current science research as long as your team keep it a secret, because the name reveal will only bring your pst research and achievements, not what you're currently do (unless it's already leaked before). If any damage happen from competitor, it's them trying to copy your "breakthrough" by going crypto for funding, which (given you've made your proposal and will be on a presale soon) you're already ahead of them.
Second, the paragraph bothered me, "who has experienced many of the problems of traditional, old-school science funding and venture capital." If your reseach is truly breakthrough, you won't in difficulties in funding. A refusal in funding for a project will only happen if the project proposed pose no future and/or the scientist themselves are questionable. So?
I think you have missunderstood something here. SCIENTIA is about changing the way Science is funded and translated into practice through entrepeneurship. Here I know from my own experience, that currently existing ways are far from great, especially in the biomedical field. That is the motivation.
Nothing about SCIENTIA has to do with funding own research. The SCIENTIA Trust will fund projects I and the whole SCIENTIA team have nothing to do with. To fund my own research projects, those of team members or even those of close associates with the SCIENTIA Trust would be highly unethical and will obviously not happen. In my view there should be fierce competition for projects to be funded by the SCIENTIA Trust to ensure the best projects get selected which will help the science and the SCIENTIA community having a (also monetary) interest in the SCIENTIA Trust. But in the end it will be decided together with the SCIENTIA community how funding will be decided upon, once we enter this later phase of the SCIENTIA project.
By the way I would also not call myself "world-renowned" and am pretty sure I have not done that anywhere ;-)
Ahh, pardon the misunderstanding, I have to make do with the snippets of info gathered only from quoted sentences this thread as your site was down yesterday.
But, as now you have explained your project nicely, I understand better and further that there should be no problem in revealing your identity, if your intention is truly noble.
Broken down into points, your aim is simply to help funding scientists on their research (especially in biomedical field), because the (borrowing your words) "that currently existing ways are far from great". And you're afraid that revealing the identity of team will bring unwanted action from people on your field.
The way I see it, you propose two threats you'll face upon revealing the team:
1. From the scientist, or those who revolve around science research field, because they're (allegedly) "traditional", "conservative", and "resisting change". If they refuse a breakthrough funding platform because of these traits (which I doubt any would) then they deserve to be dropped from the funding list as these characteristics should not be held by any true scientist and researcher whose goal is to MAKE change and fight conservatism. Thus, an easy "nature selection" for you.
2. From the funding organization that (allegedly) feels threatened by your innovation. Worst they could do is attempting to shun you, spread negative rumors about your funding organization, which... given you're an "active, well-published biomedical scientist", rumors wont easily break reputation. And even if will, O can hardly kmagine why a scientist will refuse funding just because the fund-er currently being gossiped. Money is money. Om the other side of the pole, best your competitor could do will be to try to steal your idea, which means another and broader chances for scientists to get funded. Which... is also a win scenario for those people you initially tried to help by this project.
Kindly explain on which part of my assumption is biased, flawed, or completely wrong.