As a physician is involved in quality assurance, and evidence based medicine, I know the current process of peer review for journals which contain the research studies upon which all medical standards are based tis not perfect.
I think this is a fascinating potential replacement or supplemental source of scientific evidence.
It is good because science should be published and shared.
It is scary because the peer review process does filter out the false research, the research heavily influenced by third prties,like dairy or cattle association influence on studies on the health effects of meat and milk, or even the absurd influence of the tobacco association on research into the effects of cigarette smoking.
But all changes must be view carefully for new technology comes with new exploits and vulnerability.
But one never wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
My last 8 years spent in learning what bitcoin was, blockchain, digital ledgers and decentralized finance has been quite an intense education.
It makes me view new projects with great optimism, but a also a bit of health desire to understand the new technology strengths and weakness.
Bravo for doing something new and different, our society deserves new ideas and new technology to improve upon our old ways and create better ones.
Speaking of new things and innovation, I have written a Proposal for DHF. I would appreciate it if you woud look at it and provide feedback: #374 Link