The way coins are awarded to posts can change over time via a democratic process facilitated by a DAO. In theory, this could create the infrastructure for the s

The way coins are awarded to posts can change over time via a democratic process facilitated by a DAO. In theory, this could create the infrastructure for the scientific community to self-govern how their work is assessed and rewarded. Perhaps a 1-10 peer review rating would provide a better signal than upvotes? Or maybe basic research deserves 1.5x rewards because it helps to fertilize the landscape of translational research. If the community wants to make changes to Researchhub's incentives, we will be able to iterate over time until we find a formula that properly encourages the behaviors that benefit science the most. To speak to your example - if the v1 incentive structure encourages cheap/easy/meme science, we would be able to recognize this and make improvements to hopefully achieve better results. This is an improvement over the current static system which values bibliometrics because it has the ability to adapt and improve over time.