Opinion by: Sasha Shilina, founder of Episteme and researcher at Paradigm Research Institute
In 2024, Nature reported an unprecedented number of scientific paper retractions: over 10,000 papers withdrawn from journals due to fraud, duplication, or methodological flaws. The cherished peer review process, once the bedrock of academic integrity, is under threat. It’s too sluggish, too opaque, and too easily manipulated.
Simultaneously, artificial intelligence systems trained on these problematic data outputs create confident but nonsensical results. Papers cite fictitious studies. Research decisions are influenced by power rather than evidence. The internet, once celebrated as a democratizing tool for knowledge, has transformed into a battleground of misinformation, clickbait, and manipulated metrics.
We are experiencing an epistemic crisis.
Yet, hidden in the unexpected spaces of Crypto X and decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) discussions, a new framework is emerging. Not for value transfer, but for truth verification.
A layer 2 for knowledge
In the crypto landscape, layer 2 solutions address scalability challenges. They enable Ethereum to process transactions more quickly and at lower costs. But what if the real scalability issue is not financial, but epistemological?
Science isn’t scaling. Reputation systems, traditional journals, and funding gatekeepers create bottlenecks. Innovative hypotheses languish in grant limbo. Replications go unrewarded. Errors may take years to correct, if they are corrected at all.
What does a “layer 2 for truth” look like? This system elevates scientific hypotheses into on-chain entities—public, persistent, and open to scrutiny. Instead of broadcasting their beliefs on social media, participants stake them, putting themselves at real risk. The resolution process merges AI models that analyze and evaluate evidence with human validators who contest or confirm results, while decentralized oracles transparently log outcomes. Importantly, incentives shift from prestige to precision, rewarding accuracy over standing.
This is not decentralized finance (DeFi). It’s not even decentralized science (DeSci). It is agentic, decentralized science (DeScAI). More fundamentally, it’s epistemic finance: markets built around claims rather than coins.
Betting on reality
This is not merely science gambling. It’s a fundamental shift. Currently, the academic ecosystem rewards being interesting rather than correct. Eye-catching papers gain media attention and grant renewals, regardless of whether their findings can be replicated. In contrast, replication studies, negative results, and understated research often fade away.
Prediction markets can change the narrative. They incentivize correctness. Not fame, media buzz, or institutional backing, but actual truth. If a biotech researcher predicts a specific compound will reduce tumor growth by 20% in mice and is accurate, they benefit. If wrong, they lose. It’s straightforward, transparent, and unforgiving.
In this approach, belief becomes a quantifiable asset. Knowledge transforms into a liquid commodity. The marketplace doesn’t just trade tokens; it trades epistemic assurance.
The oracle problem reimagined
In crypto, the “oracle problem” deals with delivering real-world data onto the blockchain without trust. In this epistemic model, the oracle is not merely a price feed; it mediates what constitutes truth.
Related: Crypto policy trends to monitor in 2025: Privacy, development, and adoption
This raises challenging questions: Who determines what is true? Can AI be a dependable resolver? What occurs when markets are incorrect?
The solution is that there is no single oracle—there is a protocol. Resolution is a process that is part-automated, part-contested, and part-historical. Participants challenge, update, and refine assertions. Truth evolves into an iterative, open-source, and adversarial process, akin to code.
Yes, this may introduce epistemic volatility. In a world where even Nobel laureates make mistakes, is volatility not preferable to stagnation?
From publishing to protocols
The internet transformed publishing. Blockchains revolutionized finance. Now, a third disruption is unfolding: the protocolization of knowledge.
In this new paradigm, the very structure of knowledge is undergoing reimagining. Papers are no longer static PDFs, but dynamic contracts imbued with predictive weight, intended to inform and be tested. Citations evolve beyond mere academic acknowledgments; they become on-chain links enriched with confidence scores and traceable influence. Once a gated ritual of gatekeeping, peer review matures into an open, adversarial verification marketplace where claims can be contested, revised, and resolved publicly.
In this model, science ceases to be a static archive and transitions into a dynamic, economic, and plural living system.
Truth is the next asset class
We have assessed money, time, and attention. Yet, belief has never been accurately priced—until now.
A new type of market is arising, one that rewards confirmation over speculation—an institutional tool for aligning incentives around truth in an era of noise. The query isn’t about whether these markets entail risk; all markets do. The real question is: Can we afford not to explore this?
If crypto represents a new internet, we need more than memes, memecoins, and monkey JPEGs. We require infrastructure for the next epistemic age: for validating what is significant, when it is significant, in public.
The forthcoming major layer is not for money. It is for truth.
Opinion by: Sasha Shilina, founder of Episteme and researcher at Paradigm Research Institute.
This article serves general information purposes and should not be interpreted as legal or investment advice. The views, perspectives, and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Cointelegraph.
