4 ms·
1) What qualifies the public (even HN readers) to sort out the worthy projects from the charlatans? 2) Under such a site, funding would go to the flashiest and
by ThrowawayR2 7y ago
1) What qualifies the public (even HN readers) to sort out the worthy projects from the charlatans?
2) Under such a site, funding would go to the flashiest and best hyped projects rather than the ones that need it. There would a huge incentive for style over substance, much like Kickstarter.
It doesn't exist because it's obviously a bad idea.
- lettergram 7y agoWhile I think that’s mostly fair, you can control for much of that. Have a “trustworthy” score based on number of replication studies from the lab. Have a percentage of each donation go to replication. You can also limit it to larger institutions and what not. Honestly, is it better that we don't know where and why funding goes where it does?