The post says that anyone can express their opinion about any projects available (if they have some of that currency.) But why not to make it possible to vote just for scientists for example? Why do they care about what ordinary people think? I mean, most people don’t understand anything about specific science projects. So why would you listen to them?
Naturally, the scientists who have presented their projects to be considered by people will be somewhat skeptical: "How competent are the people when they assess a particular project if they are not scientists?".
The "wisdom of the crowd" has its advantages and disadvantages, especially when it concerns research and development. The initial task of getting familiar with the materials of the project is hard, and really overwhelming for some of the users.
It cannot be denied that some of the works are even difficult for the scientific community to perceive, let alone the ordinary internet users. What should the experts do in such a situation?
Additional information on the project. Like on any other crowdfunding platform, every project will have a personal page containing the description of the project, media materials, answers to frequently asked questions, and the developer's contacts. The purpose of this all is to make it easier to understand the project.
All the projects will be accessed by characteristics. If the expert is competent in 3 out of 50 characteristics, they can set up a filter for this quotation and assess projects in a comfortable way. Thus, one can become the website's best expert not only by the field of the project (healthcare, bioinformatics, geology), but also by quotation: the scientific novelty of the projects, the risks of the projects, etc.
It is of importance to note that the experts will not assess those projects or their areas where they are well aware of their incompetence, because upon completion of the assessment there will be penalties for incorrect actions, and this will affect the total amount of their remuneration.
3. The influence of the geopolitical environment the expert stays in. This aspect is one of the key ones in the work of the platform. It is the decentralization of the venue where the projects will be presented that will allow for granting freedom of speech, and publicize those projects, which wouldn't normally even be presented for public consideration. Many projects get blocked still at the stage of search for financing. It is the decentralization that will allow for looking at the projects and their application in everyday life from a different angle. The experts' fresh outlook on research and development, and their direct association with scientists will provide a new approach to the things. The scientists' close relationship with the public will become a launching ground for new ideas.
Of course such a symbiosis will become a good push for further development of innovative activities, which may be followed by a chain reaction at all economical levels.
