Interesting article. I can see how this could be a way to fund smaller scale research---since the investors who predict the winning research would win the entire pot. So, let's say if 10 different research projects were funded, the people who bet on the winning research would win all of the other investments (minus what went to the actual research and the overhead for whoever ran BIM). It would be interesting to see someone try this out for a smaller scale research problem with a short time horizon. I'm not sure what the ideal test problem would be. In another way, this is sort of like sports betting, but with a potential positive impact.
I like how you introduced the problem, too. But fyi, I think your first figure has Academic Funding and Industry Funding flipped.
Good catch just fixed the image. Just to be clear, when the research outcome is met, all investors get part of the pot, not just the one that funded the winning research. This is key for incentivizing information sharing, and investment in high-risk, high-reward research. I have edited the article a bit to communicate this more clearly (I am still learning a lot about writing good blog articles).
Small scale research problems are exactly one of the main uses of BIMs I think there is quite a lot of good research that could be done for $1k-$50k but there are very few organizations funding these sorts of micro-grants.
As far as finding a good test problem for this I have been trying to think about that myself, if you think of any feel free to shoot me a message or comment. When I have talked to folks who might fund a BIM, finding a good test problem has been their primary blocker.
Thanks for reading so thoroughly and thoughtfully!
Interesting article. I can see how this could be a way to fund smaller scale research---since the investors who predict the winning research would win the entire pot. So, let's say if 10 different research projects were funded, the people who bet on the winning research would win all of the other investments (minus what went to the actual research and the overhead for whoever ran BIM). It would be interesting to see someone try this out for a smaller scale research problem with a short time horizon. I'm not sure what the ideal test problem would be. In another way, this is sort of like sports betting, but with a potential positive impact.
I like how you introduced the problem, too. But fyi, I think your first figure has Academic Funding and Industry Funding flipped.
Good catch just fixed the image. Just to be clear, when the research outcome is met, all investors get part of the pot, not just the one that funded the winning research. This is key for incentivizing information sharing, and investment in high-risk, high-reward research. I have edited the article a bit to communicate this more clearly (I am still learning a lot about writing good blog articles).
Small scale research problems are exactly one of the main uses of BIMs I think there is quite a lot of good research that could be done for $1k-$50k but there are very few organizations funding these sorts of micro-grants.
As far as finding a good test problem for this I have been trying to think about that myself, if you think of any feel free to shoot me a message or comment. When I have talked to folks who might fund a BIM, finding a good test problem has been their primary blocker.
Thanks for reading so thoroughly and thoughtfully!