[searine]

Most 'misfit research' is funded by the government through broad training grants or broad departmental level support. Parts of those grants get used to fund early career researchers and students. Most often it is funding mainstream science but sometimes it is used just to keep these people on board. So it isn't about funding any one weird thing, but instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills. Even when supported by specific grants, PI will use that money to let students / fellows explore more broadly.

The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke.

[throwawaymaths]

definitionally, no:

> work that is a poor fit for academia

[searine]

Academia is already a sandbox. What kind of research would fit poorly?

In the article most of the examples of funding sources give their funding to academic labs already.

Discussion about non-governmental sources of funding is fine, but they still almost always funnel back into a lab at a university.

[godelski]

  > The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke.

Why? The funding required for more fundamental research is significantly lower. The rewards are also significantly higher. Let's be real, academic-like research is usually incredibly cheap.

And if we're looking at industry, it's laughable how much vaporware has received over the past few decades. Remember the Rabbit R1 that got over $30m in VC funding? Or the Humane pin which got over $200m and ended up being acquired for over $100m? How many billions has Magic Leap received? Did Theranos not raise well over a billion? Didn't Segway get over $100m back in 2001?! Or go look at any hype craze for VR, cryptocurrencies, or the current AI.

I'm sorry, you act like there isn't a massively high rate of failure in industry and that these VCs are making much more intelligent funding decisions. But we routinely see companies like Rabbit or Theranos get funded. Companies who no reasonable expert in their respective fields could conclude is anything short of obvious fraud.

I'm not saying there aren't companies and ideas that aren't worth the risks, but I think you don't realize how much your beliefs are based on survivorship bias. This type of investing is inherently high-risk high-reward. Investors, founders, and fanboys are routinely wrong about the level of impact and value something will have even if it is successful and not fraudulent.

The fact of the matter is that we tend to fund hype and charisma. Last I checked, these weren't the primary skills of technological innovators. Last I checked, the stereotype was in the exact opposite direction... Do you really think this is a more successful path?

  > instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills

This is essentially all you can fund at these stages. Truth is, no one knows the future.