smallworlnd on Nostr: I get the idea is to create a financial incentive for both sides, yet I still think ...

I get the idea is to create a financial incentive for both sides, yet I still think that at worst it could be weaponized and lead to outcomes mentioned by @btcshellingpt. At best it's another stressor on scientists. How is the reviewer chosen? You also need a third-party domain expert to review new findings. Currently reviewers are unpaid, entirely at the publishing house's financial benefit. Maybe the reviewer is a competing lab that is starved for cash and would go to greater lengths to accuse fraud in any way that triggers the oracle. So then who gets to be the oracle to decide what is fraud? How long does the process get dragged out for? Until the researcher's lab goes bankrupt? Maybe the reviewer is a friend of the lab and is willing to let fraud slide through some out-of-band agreement. Just to name a few ways in which creating this adversarial environment may or may not lead to the clean outcomes we would hope for.