Understanding science funding in tech, 2011-2021

The tech story maps quite predictably to philanthropic efforts in previous decades, which is to say that it has a higher likelihood for success: it’s a pattern that people understand better. The crypto story is radically different, requiring us to reimagine what it means to fund and develop public goods from an entirely new set of assumptions. It i... See more

On the crypto side, we should watch to see whether new initiatives:-Are able to generate and distribute funding for science work;-Produce research that is recognized by the wider science community;-Generate uncapped rewards (financially or otherwise) for participating scientists

There are fundamental differences in the crypto- vs. tech-native theories of change. Tech focuses on hiring top talent, but borrows similar reward structures from both science and startups today. Crypto takes a more diffuse, networked approach to attracting talent and is more willing to reimagine basic structures like patents, IP, and even research... See more

Crypto takes this one step further with the development of new primitives for public goods. They are concerned that traditional philanthropic strategies will repeat the mistakes of legacy institutions, and therefore look to develop new ways of rewarding scientists and helping them share in uncapped upside, which, if successful, could do for science... See more

Tech is still heavily dominated by startups, and will probably continue to be for a very long time. But as tech matures as an industry, and there are more extreme wealth outcomes, there is now (as one might expect) an increased interest in solving ambitious problems with philanthropic capital.