Thank you for opening this critical discussion. I agree that these three problems measuring impact, securing sustained funding, and developing accurate evaluation metrics are fundamental bottlenecks to growth.
Here is my feedback, informed by my experience building infrastructure for Real-World Assets (RWAs) and the Continuous Verifiable Reality (CVR) framework.
1. Are we framing the problems correctly?
Yes, you are. The problems are correctly framed around the measurement of non-speculative value and the allocation mechanism to support it. The difficulty of translating deep ecosystem value (e.g., security, L2 scalability) into quantifiable, fundable metrics remains the central challenge.
2. What critical research we’ve missed?
The critical missing link is a mechanism to quantify and certify the real-world economic importance and future impact of a project.
It is currently extremely difficult to establish a universal “value proposition” metric that is accepted both within the Ethereum ecosystem and by external actors (regulators, institutional finance, large industry).
We need research into “Verified Externalities”:
-
Quantification of Risk Reduction: Public goods funding should prioritize projects that mathematically reduce systemic risk or solve fundamental friction points for the global economy.
-
Ecosystem Metrics: We should fund based on quantifiable external impact (e.g., a formal reduction in Basel III collateral risk weights, as modeled in my CVR proposal), rather than solely internal metrics (e.g., number of active users, TVL).
-
Auditable Value: The research agenda should seek frameworks to prove the dollar-value impact of a public good, making the allocation defensible and understandable to external capital.
3. What experiments are you running that could inform the broader ecosystem?
I hope this is not self-promoting. My 20+ years of experience in financial and economics analysis and now building the CVR framework informs this discussion on quantifying external value.
I am building infrastructure that solves a trillion-dollar friction problem that traditional finance cannot: real-time asset verification. The CVR framework is an experiment that proves this thesis. It uses a reputation-first oracle and formal mathematics to:
-
Mathematically Reduce Systemic Risk: Proving a 40-60% reduction in collateral risk weights for verified assets (see my post on Ethresear.ch).
-
Show Utility of L2: Demonstrating that high-frequency IoT data (167 events/sec) can be securely anchored to an L2, unlocking new commercial applications.
This type of “new builder” project one that solves a fundamental, external problem and relies on the core value proposition of Ethereum’s technical upgrades is what Public Goods Funding should focus on. Funding projects that prove Ethereum’s external utility is the ultimate public good.
4. What theoretical frameworks might unlock progress?
I believe progress is locked within the intersection of Mechanism Design and Impact Certification.
The theoretical framework that could unlock progress is Reputation-Weighted Quadratic Funding (RWQF) tied to Auditable Externalities:
-
Mechanism Design (Reputation): Project evaluation should adopt a robust, incentivized mechanism similar to decentralized protocols. Your funding allocation system could use a formal model similar to our Reputation Formula to weigh factors like team history, demonstrated utility, and continued engagement:
R(i,t) = (alpha * Accuracy) + (beta * Uptime) + (gamma * Stake) - (delta * Disputes)
-
Impact Certification: Projects must be able to submit a mathematically or economically auditable proof of impact (the “externality”). This moves beyond subjective judgment, making the funding system more resilient and defensible to external capital.
By linking Public Goods Funding to formally verified, reputation-weighted inputs that certify real-world economic value, we can create a sustainable and powerful funding ecosystem.