ZIP-600: DeSci Protocol Framework

Abstract

This ZIP defines the foundational Decentralized Science (DeSci) protocol for the Zoo ecosystem. It establishes on-chain primitives for the full research lifecycle: proposal submission, peer review coordination, funding allocation, milestone tracking, data publication, and reproducibility verification. The protocol creates a permissionless, transparent, and incentive-aligned system for scientific research that preserves academic rigor while removing gatekeepers from the funding and publication pipeline.

Motivation

Traditional scientific research suffers from well-documented structural failures:

Funding bottlenecks: Grant agencies reject 75-85% of proposals, and review cycles take 6-18 months. Early-career researchers and non-institutional scientists are systematically disadvantaged.
Publication bias: Journals favor positive results, creating a replication crisis. Negative results and null findings are rarely published despite their scientific value.
Opaque review: Peer review is closed, slow, and inconsistent. Reviewers receive no compensation or reputation credit for quality work.
Data silos: Research data is locked behind institutional paywalls and proprietary formats, hindering reproducibility and meta-analysis.
Misaligned incentives: Researchers optimize for publication count and impact factor rather than scientific truth and reproducibility.

Zoo Labs Foundation, as a 501(c)(3) focused on open AI research and conservation science, requires a protocol-level framework that aligns incentives toward reproducible, open, and impactful research. This ZIP provides that framework, building on the ethical foundations of ZIP-540 (Research Ethics & Data Governance) and integrating with the broader Zoo governance system defined in ZIP-0 (Ecosystem Architecture).

Cross-Ecosystem Context

This proposal draws on governance patterns from:

HIP-0066 (Hanzo Data Governance): Data classification, access control, and lifecycle management primitives.
HIP-0045 (Hanzo Documentation Framework): Structured metadata and versioning for technical artifacts.
LP-8800 through LP-8805 (Lux DAO Governance Platform): On-chain proposal lifecycle, voting mechanics, and treasury integration.

Specification

1. Research Proposal Lifecycle

A research proposal is an on-chain object with the following state machine:

DRAFT --> SUBMITTED --> UNDER_REVIEW --> FUNDED --> ACTIVE --> COMPLETED
                |              |            |          |
                v              v            v          v
            WITHDRAWN      REJECTED    CANCELLED    FAILED

1.1 Proposal Schema

{
  "proposalId": "bytes32",
  "version": "uint16",
  "title": "string",
  "abstract": "string",
  "ipfsCid": "string",
  "principalInvestigator": "address",
  "coInvestigators": ["address"],
  "institution": "string",
  "category": "enum(CONSERVATION, AI, BIODIVERSITY, CLIMATE, SOCIAL)",
  "fundingRequested": "uint256",
  "currency": "address",
  "milestones": [
    {
      "description": "string",
      "deliverables": ["string"],
      "fundingPortion": "uint16",
      "deadline": "uint64"
    }
  ],
  "ethicsReviewStatus": "enum(EXEMPT, EXPEDITED, FULL)",
  "dataManagementPlan": "string",
  "openAccessCommitment": "bool",
  "createdAt": "uint64",
  "updatedAt": "uint64"
}

1.2 Submission Requirements

Field	Requirement
Full proposal document	IPFS-pinned PDF/Markdown with methodology, budget, timeline
Ethics classification	Self-assessed per ZIP-540 categories (Exempt/Expedited/Full)
Data management plan	Per ZIP-540 FAIR/CARE principles
Open access commitment	All outputs CC-BY or CC0 unless restricted per ZIP-540
Milestone breakdown	Minimum 2 milestones; each with measurable deliverables
Conflict of interest	Disclosed affiliations and funding sources

1.3 Proposal Bond

Submitters deposit a bond of 100 ZOO (configurable by governance) to prevent spam. The bond is returned upon completion or if the proposal reaches UNDER_REVIEW regardless of outcome. Bonds are slashed only for proposals found to violate ZIP-540 ethics standards.

2. Peer Review Coordination

Peer review is managed on-chain with off-chain review content stored on IPFS.

2.1 Reviewer Assignment

1. Proposal enters SUBMITTED state
2. Review coordinator (elected per ZIP-603) assigns 3-5 reviewers
3. Reviewers are selected from the Reviewer Registry based on:
   - Domain expertise tags
   - Reputation score (see Section 2.3)
   - Absence of conflict of interest (see ZIP-603)
   - Availability and recent workload
4. Reviewers accept or decline within 7 days
5. Declined slots are reassigned automatically

2.2 Review Schema

{
  "reviewId": "bytes32",
  "proposalId": "bytes32",
  "reviewer": "address",
  "ipfsCid": "string",
  "scores": {
    "scientificMerit": "uint8(1-10)",
    "methodology": "uint8(1-10)",
    "feasibility": "uint8(1-10)",
    "impact": "uint8(1-10)",
    "ethics": "uint8(1-10)"
  },
  "recommendation": "enum(FUND, REVISE, REJECT)",
  "confidenceLevel": "uint8(1-5)",
  "submittedAt": "uint64"
}

2.3 Reviewer Reputation

Reviewers accumulate reputation through a staking and scoring mechanism:

Action	Reputation Effect
Complete review on time	+10 base points
Review quality score > 8/10	+5 bonus points
Review cited by other reviewers	+3 per citation
Review overturned by appeal	-15 points
Missed deadline	-10 points
Conflict of interest violation	-50 points, temporary suspension

Reputation decays at 5% per quarter to incentivize continued participation.

3. Funding Mechanism

3.1 Funding Sources

Source	Mechanism
Zoo Treasury	Direct allocation via ZIP-603 governance
Quadratic Funding Rounds	Community-matched donations per ZIP-603
Earmarked Grants	Donor-restricted funds per ZIP-0 Section 11
Retroactive Public Goods	Post-completion rewards for high-impact research

3.2 Milestone-Based Disbursement

Funds are held in escrow and released per milestone:

Milestone submitted by PI
        |
        v
Milestone reviewed by 2+ reviewers (7-day window)
        |
        v
Milestone approved (majority vote)
        |
        v
Funds released to PI address

Failed milestones trigger a 30-day remediation period. Two consecutive failed milestones move the proposal to FAILED state and remaining funds return to the treasury.

3.3 Escrow Contract Interface

interface IResearchEscrow {
    function depositFunds(bytes32 proposalId) external payable;
    function releaseMilestone(bytes32 proposalId, uint16 milestoneIndex) external;
    function failMilestone(bytes32 proposalId, uint16 milestoneIndex, string calldata reason) external;
    function cancelProposal(bytes32 proposalId) external;
    function getProposalBalance(bytes32 proposalId) external view returns (uint256);
}

4. Publication and Data Registry

4.1 Publication Record

All funded research must produce a publication record on-chain:

Field	Description
proposalId	Link to original proposal
ipfsCid	Full paper/report on IPFS
datasetCids	Associated datasets on IPFS
codeCid	Analysis code repository hash
license	CC-BY-4.0, CC0, or approved alternative
peerReviewCids	Post-publication review records
reproducibilityStatus	VERIFIED, UNVERIFIED, FAILED

4.2 Reproducibility Verification

Independent researchers may submit reproducibility reports:

1. Claim a publication for reproducibility verification
2. Execute methodology using published data and code
3. Submit reproducibility report with results comparison
4. Report reviewed by original reviewers + 1 independent
5. Publication record updated with reproducibility status

Successful reproducibility verification earns both the original PI and the verifier reputation and token rewards.

5. Smart Contract Architecture

ResearchRegistry (upgradeable proxy)
    |
    +-- ProposalManager
    |       Manages proposal lifecycle and state transitions
    |
    +-- ReviewCoordinator
    |       Assigns reviewers, collects reviews, computes scores
    |
    +-- FundingEscrow
    |       Holds funds, releases per milestone approval
    |
    +-- PublicationRegistry
    |       Records outputs, tracks reproducibility
    |
    +-- ReputationTracker
            Manages reviewer and PI reputation scores

All contracts are deployed behind UUPS proxies with a 48-hour timelock on upgrades, controlled by the Zoo governance multisig.

6. Protocol Parameters

Parameter	Default	Governance-Adjustable
Proposal bond	100 ZOO	Yes
Review period	30 days	Yes
Reviewers per proposal	3	Yes (min 2, max 7)
Milestone review window	7 days	Yes
Remediation period	30 days	Yes
Reputation decay rate	5% / quarter	Yes
Minimum reputation to review	50 points	Yes

Rationale

On-chain state machine: Embedding the proposal lifecycle on-chain provides an immutable audit trail and enables trustless milestone disbursement. Off-chain alternatives lack the transparency required for a 501(c)(3) operating in public.
IPFS for content: Full proposals, reviews, and publications are too large for on-chain storage. IPFS provides content-addressed, decentralized storage with the on-chain CID serving as a tamper-proof reference.
Reputation over identity: The reviewer reputation system avoids requiring real-world identity verification (which conflicts with reviewer anonymity goals in ZIP-604) while still providing sybil resistance through staking and decay.
Milestone-based funding: Lump-sum grants create moral hazard. Milestone-based disbursement aligns incentives and gives the community early exit if research goes off track.
Retroactive funding: Including retroactive public goods funding acknowledges that the most impactful research is often only recognized after completion.

Security Considerations

Sybil attacks on review: Mitigated by minimum reputation thresholds, stake requirements, and conflict-of-interest detection (ZIP-603). A single entity controlling multiple reviewer identities would need to accumulate reputation independently for each.
Proposal spam: The bond mechanism prices out low-effort submissions. Governance can adjust the bond amount in response to spam volume.
Escrow risk: Funds in escrow are at smart contract risk. Contracts must undergo formal verification and at least two independent audits before deployment. Emergency pause functionality is included.
IPFS availability: Content pinning is required by the protocol. Zoo Labs operates pinning infrastructure and requires funded projects to use at least two independent pinning services.
Oracle manipulation: Milestone approval is human-driven (reviewer votes), not oracle-dependent, reducing attack surface. Score aggregation uses median rather than mean to resist outlier manipulation.
Governance capture: Protocol parameter changes require a 48-hour timelock and supermajority vote per ZIP-603, preventing rapid parameter manipulation.

References

ZIP-0: Zoo Ecosystem Architecture & Framework
ZIP-540: Research Ethics & Data Governance
ZIP-560: Evidence Locker Index
ZIP-603: Research DAO Governance
ZIP-604: Decentralized Peer Review
HIP-0066: Hanzo Data Governance
HIP-0045: Hanzo Documentation Framework
LP-8800 through LP-8805: Lux DAO Governance Platform
DeSci Foundation. "Decentralized Science Manifesto." 2022.
Buterin, V. "Retroactive Public Goods Funding." 2021.

Changelog

Version	Date	Changes
1.0	2025-01-15	Initial draft

DeSci Protocol Framework