Thanks for this proposal on DeSci â itâs inspiring to see energy around making science more open, participatory, and aligned with the values of public goods.
In our proposal, we didnât propose a specific domain. Instead, weâre aiming to validate whether CollabBerryâs contributor-level allocation and accountability tools could serve across domains as complementary mechanisms.
What resonates deeply here is the challenge of credit and recognition in science. DeSci projects often rely on diverse contributions â from researchers and developers to data curators and community builders â yet traditional funding and publishing structures struggle to reflect that complexity. CollabBerry experiments with continuous peer-to-peer assessments that build a transparent contributor reputation layer and inform fairer allocation of funds inside teams.
We see potential alignment here: just as DeSci seeks to break away from legacy credit systems, CollabBerry offers a mechanism for building open, verifiable recognition at the contributor level, complementing new models of scientific funding and collaboration.
Would love your thoughts: do you see peer-based allocation mechanisms as useful in strengthening contributor recognition and fairness in DeSci projects?