Picture this

Who it is for

A research collective debates a lab protocol. Wisdom Weight lets members attach credentials (published papers, peer attestations), and votes on lab questions weigh the biologists more while budget votes stay one person one vote.

Two ways to own it

What you get

Base$299

$75 deposit to reserve

Credential linking via EAS, topic categories, weighting rules per category, proposal and vote UI, transparency report.

You choose: chain
You choose: name and logo
You choose: accent color
You choose: topic list
You choose: weight caps

Customfrom $2,500

Built around you

Reshape it entirely: new features, your flows, your brand end to end, integrations you need. We scope it with you.

Everything in Base
Custom features and design
Priority build

Why it is new

What exists today, and what this does differently

Why own your own

Topic-scoped expertise voting is live in Colony; this would be a lighter packaging.

Closest things out there

Colony weights votes by domain-scoped reputation earned from contributions, and DeXe offers expert-weighted voting models.

Checked with web searches in October 2026. A search is not proof that nothing similar exists, and the market moves fast, so we recheck before every build.

What it unlocks

The human in it

Mines your knowledge into decision power.

The Regatta Board

Races it can enter

grant · Optimism Collective · rolling

Optimism Grants Council

per season

Official page ↗

Governance on Superchain; existing projects OK

Their rule on existing code: Existing projects OK

grant · Ethereum Foundation · rolling

Ethereum Foundation ESP

rolling

Official page ↗

Governance research; existing projects OK

Their rule on existing code: Existing projects OK

What you own

The whole app, not a starter kit.

The complete Wisdom Weight app: a community votes with expertise weighted on the questions it fits, capped, while money questions stay one person one vote, with sealed ballots, a public weight table, onchain tallies and a paywall built in.

Base price · $299

The user app, complete

Every buyer gets the same finished app. Basic branding and copy changes come through a quick form.

Three step onboardingHome

Shown once: papers outweigh coins, capped never crowned, money stays equal.

Open vote and next actionHome

The live vote, the member's weight and one clear next step.

Monday bench briefHome

Review one peer's work a week and vouch, with a running streak.

Sealed ballotsVotes

Cast and change a sealed ballot until close, then count against the published table.

Three tallies side by sideVotes

Every result shown under the group's rule, under headcount and under tokens.

ProposalsVotes

Any member schedules a question on a topic; the table is published 24 hours before.

Topics with expertise or equal rulesWeights

Two topics free, more with Collective. Budget topics stay one person one vote.

Custom points and capsWeights

Points per paper and per vouch, a cap per person. Gated behind Collective.

Public weight table with reasonsWeights

Tap any member to see the exact credentials behind their number.

DOI linking with retraction checkCreds

Papers found on ORCID are checked against public metadata; retracted papers add nothing.

Peer vouches on EASCreds

Only members with weight in a topic can vouch; vouches fade on a schedule.

Checker agent flags for reviewersCreds

Attestation rings and retractions go to human reviewers to uphold or dismiss. Gated behind Collective.

Onchain receiptsReceipts

Weight snapshots, attestations, tallies and payments, with what stays offchain spelled out.

Plans, checkout and year viewProfile

Plans from the owner paywall, USDC checkout, reversal and weight share charts, settings.

Open the full app demo

Add-on

Owner console

Your admin side: revenue, paywall editor, users, rules and the agent log.

Revenue and paywall editorRevenue

MRR, payouts, incoming USDC, live editing of tiers, prices, gates and payment methods.

Rules, agent log and roadmapRules

Retraction re-check, vouch fade, ring blocking, reviewers, money lock, chain; plus the Agent log and priced Roadmap.

Top-up

Growth and referrals

Referral and growth mechanics, switched on when you are ready to grow.

Growth loops and referralsGrowth

Rule template gallery, portable vouches, cohorts and group to group referrals.

The money path, built in

How it earns for you

Members always vote free. Groups pay a monthly plan for custom rules, more topics and the checker agent; networks of groups pay for shared attestations and funder reports.

LabFreeTwo topics, standard points and cap, public weight table, three tallies side by side

Collective$29 a monthUnlimited topics, custom points and caps, the checker agent with reviewer flags

Network$149 a monthSeveral groups sharing attestations, exportable governance reports for funders

Paid in USDC on Base by default, other chains or card on-ramp optional. Gas for attestations and tallies is usually under one cent and can be sponsored by the owner.

Prices are yours to set. Illustrative, not a promise of income.

Growth loops, built in

How it spreads

Portable vouches: a member vouched for in one group carries it to the next
Rule templates other groups copy in one tap
Three tally results people screenshot and share
Monday bench brief that builds a weekly vouch habit
Group to group referral links worth a free month for both

Roadmap · build the next phase with us

Where it goes next

v1 included

The full member app

Topics with expertise or equal rules
DOI linking with retraction checks
Peer attestations on EAS
Sealed ballots and three tallies
Receipts, plans and checkout

Included

ORCID sync and governance reports

Two way ORCID sync for papers and datasets
Exportable governance report for funders
Telegram bench brief bot
Rule templates other groups can copy

Add-on from $400

Portable expertise network

Attestations that carry across groups, scoped and capped
Cross group topics for shared research
Private ballots with zero knowledge tallies
Open weighting schema and reference verifier

Add-on from $900

For investors and grant reviewers

The pitch, ready

Votes that know who knows: expertise counts on the questions it fits, capped, and money never buys it.

Problem: Research collectives, open source groups and professional communities decide technical questions by token or headcount, so a lab protocol can be set by whoever holds the most tokens. Pure expert rule is no better: it hands the purse to a few.

Solution: Members link papers by DOI and receive peer vouches on EAS, tagged by topic. On a topic, credentials add capped weight; money questions stay one person one vote. The weight table is public before every vote and the tally is recorded onchain.

Why now: Attestations on OP Stack chains cost under a cent, embedded wallets remove crypto friction, and small models can re-check DOIs and catch attestation rings cheaply.

Market: Research collectives, open source projects, clinics, co-ops and professional associations that make technical decisions together and answer to funders.

The ask: Three pilot groups (a research collective, an open source project and a co-op) and public goods grants to publish the weighting schema.

Funding is never guaranteed. Check each program's rules.

For hackathons and demo days

Your 2 minute demo

Home: meet Lucia, 41, in Valparaiso. A token vote once killed half a season of spores; tonight the collective votes again.
Weights: see why Lucia and Kwame hit the 3x cap and why Tomas's 4,000 tokens add nothing. Tap a row for the reasons.
Votes: seal a ballot on the spore temperature, close the vote and compare the three tallies.
Votes: open the donation question and show that $20,000 buys no lab weight.
Creds: link a paper by DOI, watch a retracted one get refused, then vouch for Ana.
Owner Agent and Rules: switch off ring blocking and watch Ana's weight and the log change.
Owner Revenue: change the Collective price, preview the member Plans sheet and pay with the USDC checkout.
Owner Growth and Roadmap: feature a rule template, then request the v2 ORCID sync build.

Many hackathons require code written at the event. See the Regatta Boardfor each race's rule.

Make it entirely yours

Custom work from $1,000: your own credential types (licences, commits, certifications), integrations with ORCID, GitHub or a member CRM, extra languages, or a branded deployment for a network. Scoped on a call.

Custom from $2,500

BLUEPRINT

Why it matters and how it really works

The need

Research collectives, open source groups and professional communities make technical decisions by token or headcount, so a lab protocol can be set by whoever holds the most tokens. Pure expert rule is no better: it hands the purse to a few. Groups need expertise to count on the questions it fits, and only there.

What exists and what is new

This exists. Colony weights votes by domain scoped reputation earned from contributions, and DeXe offers expert weighted voting models. Research verdict: exists, low novelty. What this app adds is a lighter packaging for small groups: credentials linked from papers by DOI and peer attestations on EAS, weighting rules set per topic, a hard cap per person, money questions kept one person one vote by default, a public weight table before every vote, and a checker agent that catches retractions and attestation rings.

The data it runs on

EAS attestations for peer vouches and linked credentials, topic tags, the weight table snapshot taken before each vote, tallies and the rule used. Paper metadata from public DOI records including retraction status. Individual ballots stay sealed to members; flags stay with reviewers.

1.The mission

Let communities give knowledge a fair voice on the questions it fits, without turning it into a crown or letting money buy it.

2.Why people can't resist it

See why someone weighs more The public weight table shows every credential behind a number, so weight feels earned, not granted.

Monday bench brief Open votes in your topics, your weight per topic and one peer's work to review. Vouching is a small weekly habit that builds the group's map of who knows what.

Three tallies side by side Every result shows how it would have gone under one person one vote and under tokens, which makes the trade off visible and starts good arguments.

3.How it works for real

Identity: Members sign in with an embedded wallet (for example Privy). Optional ORCID link to pull their own papers.

Credentials: Papers are linked by DOI and checked against public metadata including retractions. Peer vouches are EAS attestations on Optimism, Base or Arbitrum, tagged by topic, and count only from members who already hold weight in that topic.

Rules contract: A governor style contract stores topics, points per credential type, the cap per person and which topics stay one person one vote. Rule changes are themselves votes.

Snapshot and tally: Before each vote the weight table is computed offchain, published, and its hash committed onchain. Ballots are sealed until close, then tallied against that snapshot, with the tally and rule recorded onchain.

Checker agent: A scheduled agent on a small model tier (for example Claude Haiku) re-checks DOIs every 30 days, detects closed attestation rings and drafts flags for two human reviewers. It never sets weights.

Notifications: Email or Telegram for the Monday brief and vote openings.

4.Cost per use and pricing

On an OP Stack chain an attestation or tally transaction usually costs well under one cent. The checker agent uses about 3,000 tokens per credential check on a small model tier, roughly $0.003 to $0.02 each. A 30 member group with 75 credentials and 4 votes a month runs about $2 to $5 a month, mostly email and hosting.

Lab Free up to 25 members

Two topics, standard caps, public weight table.

Collective $29 a month

Unlimited topics, custom points and caps, sealed ballots, checker agent and Monday brief.

Network $149 a month

Several groups sharing attestations across a network, exportable governance reports for funders.

5.Growth loop

Peer attestations are portable: a member vouched for in one group carries that attestation to the next, which pulls neighbouring groups in. Groups share their weight rules as templates, and governance researchers cite the side by side tallies.

6.Risks and guardrails

Credentialism: Papers miss tacit knowledge, like a fisher who knows the kelp beds. Peer attestations, caps and keeping money votes equal limit it; groups should review rules yearly.

Attestation rings: Only weighted members can vouch, rings are flagged, and vouches fade after 18 months.

Bad credentials: Retractions are checked on a schedule and weight is recomputed. Members can contest a flag to two reviewers.

Capture by insiders: Caps per person and published tables keep any one member from dominating; rule changes require a vote of everyone.

Privacy: Who voted which way stays sealed. Credentials are public only to the extent the member chooses to link them.

7.Build order

Topics and rules contract with cap and equal vote topics
DOI linking with retraction check
Peer attestations on EAS with topic tags
Published weight table and committed snapshot
Sealed vote and three way tally view
Checker agent with ring detection and reviewer flags

8.Where this is going

Now
One research collective lets its spore growers weigh more on spore questions, and keeps its budget equal.
Next
Open source projects, clinics and co-ops weight technical calls by verified contribution in that area.
Later
Portable attestations let expertise earned in one community count, capped and scoped, in the next.
The world it builds
Groups that decide well because they know who knows what, and never let money buy that knowledge.

Costs and tools are estimates at the time of writing. General information only, not legal or financial advice.

OWNER PLAYBOOK

Own it, then chart your voyage

Nine routes from one vessel. Tap a port to open its chart.

Why own Wisdom Weight

Token voting hands decisions to whoever holds the most coins, even on questions only experts can judge. Wisdom Weight lets members attach credentials and peer attestations, weighs votes by proven expertise on each topic, and keeps budget votes one person one vote. Owning it means you run the governance tool for research collectives, guilds and clubs: your weighting templates, your clients and your subscription revenue.

What’s stopping you?

“I can't code. Can I run governance software?”

Yes. Credential linking via EAS, topic categories, per topic weighting rules, proposal and vote UI and transparency report are built. You configure topics and caps and deploy from your wallet with the guide.

“Isn't weighting by expertise elitist?”

It can be, which is why it applies only to topics where expertise matters and budget or values votes stay one person one vote. Weight caps stop any single expert dominating. Publish the rules.

“How do you prove expertise?”

Linked credentials (papers, certifications) and peer attestations from other members. It is not perfect; let members challenge a credential and review weights each season.

“Will groups actually switch tools?”

Not easily. Start with a new decision, not a migration: one technical question run in Wisdom Weight alongside the usual vote.

“Is it really mine?”

Yes: contracts and schemas deploy from your wallet and every collective you onboard runs on your instance.

The million-dollar ladder

Collectives, research DAOs and professional guilds pay a monthly subscription per organization for expertise weighted voting and transparency reports.

$150

$4,900

$59,400

$85,000

First 10 groups

10 organizations

$15 per month

Research collectives and guilds

100 organizations

$49 per month

DAOs and professional networks

600 organizations

$99 per month

Million dollar run rate

850 organizations

$100 per month

Target research DAOs and science collectives first, where expertise matters most.
Weighting templates per field (bio, security, legal).
Transparency reports that win trust from members.
Integrations with existing proposal tools.

Illustrative stages, not a forecast. Results depend on you and the market; nothing here is guaranteed.