Executive Summary

healthspan.fund represents a paradigm shift in longevity science funding, leveraging transparent micro-investments, AI-guided evaluation, and community oversight to accelerate the translation of cutting-edge aging research into real-world therapies. Connected to the 199 ecosystem of longevity companies, we focus on cellular reprogramming, preventive medicine, and evidence-based healthspan interventions.

healthspan.fund

By Boris Djordjevic 199 Biotechnologies / 199 Longevity, United Kingdom Updated: 5 June 2025

Abstract

healthspan.fund is a transparent micro-funding platform designed to accelerate translational longevity and preventive health innovation. We bridge the "valley of death" by aggregating donations of any amount - one-time or recurring monthly - into significant, milestone-based funding (US $10,000–$250,000) for promising geroscience and preventive biotech ventures. Leveraging AI-assisted triage using open-source Large Language Models (LLMs), optional quadratic capital allocation, and transparent "glass-box" data rooms, healthspan.fund empowers a global community to back rigorously vetted projects and track their impact directly.

The Funding Problem in Longevity & Healthspan Research

Translational longevity and healthspan research – the effort to turn lab discoveries about aging into real therapies – faces a chronic funding gap. Traditional biomedical funding is risk-averse, favoring incremental, “safe” projects over bold ideas. Ambitious proposals that could dramatically extend healthy lifespan often fail to secure grants. This conservatism leaves many high-impact, high-risk studies stranded in the so-called “Valley of Death” – the chasm between basic research and clinical application. In this valley, promising therapies languish or die due to lack of capital, even as development costs (Eroom’s Law) keep rising.

Longevity research amplifies these challenges. Targeting aging itself (rather than one disease at a time) is a paradigm shift, viewed as unproven by many funding bodies. Government agencies and pharma investors tend to avoid such unorthodox bets, creating herd behavior that reinforces funding shortages in this field. There is a tremendous need for funding high-risk, high-reward projects in late-preclinical and early clinical stages – exactly the kind of work that could produce breakthroughs in extending healthspan.

Existing alternatives only partially fill the gap. Philanthropic nonprofits and foundations do support longevity science, but traditional donations offer donors little control or feedback, reducing incentive to give beyond token amounts. On the other end, venture capital and equity crowdfunding (e.g. platforms like Republic) let startups raise from retail investors, but these involve complex regulatory compliance and typically focus on profit potential rather than pure research. Republic, for example, has built a 3 million strong community and deployed over $2.6 B to 2,500+ companies via regulated crowdfunding. Yet such investment platforms require legal filings and are ill-suited for early-stage science where outcomes are uncertain and no immediate financial return exists.

General crowdfunding sites (Kickstarter, GoFundMe) have emerged to let the public back creative projects, but scientific research has unique needs that mainstream crowdfunding hasn’t fully met. Scientific projects demand expert vetting, progress accountability, and often far larger budgets than a typical gadget or art project. Niche science crowdfunding sites have appeared – for instance, Experiment.com (for academic research) and Lifespan.io (for longevity research) – proving that micro-funding can work. Experiment.com uses an all-or-nothing model and rigorously reviews each proposal for scientific merit, having funded over 700 projects with ~$7.5 M pledged. Lifespan.io, a non-profit platform focused on anti-aging research, has raised over $750,000 to support 9 projects (leading to at least one peer-reviewed publication) with contributions from 3,500+ backers. These pioneers show the appetite of retail supporters to fund science when given the opportunity and trust mechanisms.

Despite this progress, significant pain points remain: fragmentation of efforts, limited scalability, and varying standards of transparency. healthspan.fund is designed to tackle these issues head-on. We propose a new model that combines the grassroots energy of crowdfunding with the rigor and openness of decentralized science (DeSci) – creating a transparent micro-funding platform purpose-built for longevity and healthspan innovation. Our goal is to dramatically increase the flow of capital into early-stage, high-impact longevity projects by empowering a broad community of backers and founders in a trusted ecosystem.

The healthspan.fund Solution: Transparent Micro-Funding Model

healthspan.fund is a platform that allows anyone – from enthusiastic individuals to mission-aligned philanthropies – to pledge micro-donations to translational longevity projects in a fully transparent, milestone-driven way. By aggregating many small contributions, we unlock substantial funding for projects that might otherwise go unsupported. This model directly addresses the risk-aversion of traditional funding: a large crowd of supporters can back bold, novel ideas that peer reviewers might decline. Importantly, healthspan.fund introduces modern accountability and curation mechanisms to ensure funds are used effectively and donors remain engaged.

Key aspects of our solution include:

• Open Platform for Projects: Researchers, biotech entrepreneurs, and citizen scientists working on longevity interventions can submit project proposals. These range from early-stage lab experiments to small-scale human trials or technology prototypes – with an emphasis on translational steps that bridge lab results towards real-world therapies.

• Donation-Based Funding: All contributions on the platform are structured as donations, not investments. Backers donate to support scientific progress, not to earn a financial return, keeping the legal structure simple (more on legal considerations below). This lowers the barrier for participation – anyone can contribute $10, $50, $100 with no accreditation requirements or complex contracts. It also avoids treating projects as securities, greatly reducing onboarding friction compared to equity crowdfunding.

• Flexible Donations at Scale: The platform welcomes both one-time and recurring monthly donations – donations of any amount can be aggregated. Contributions from many individuals can sum to significant budgets. In fact, broad participation is incentivized by our funding allocation method (discussed later), so a large number of small donors can outweigh a few big donors in influence. This democratization means the longevity community directs funding to projects they find promising, embodying the “wisdom of the crowd.”

• Transparency at Every Step: True to the DeSci ethos, healthspan.fund is built on radical transparency. Project details, budgets, interim data, and updates are shared in open “data rooms” for each campaign. Pledges and fund flows are recorded and visible (with privacy for individual identities as needed). By making information public, we foster trust without heavy-handed oversight. Every backer can see how their money is used, and the community can collectively verify progress, which discourages misuse of funds more effectively than opaque bureaucratic reports.

• Milestone-Based Release: Rather than handing over a lump sum upfront, healthspan.fund ties disbursements to pre-defined milestones. Project teams must propose clear milestones (e.g. “Complete animal study and report results by Month 6”) as part of their campaign. Funds are held in escrow and released in tranches when milestones are met and verified (verified by evidence posted in the data room and vetted by the community or experts). This milestone tracking ensures accountability: if a team fails to deliver, remaining funds can be reallocated or returned, protecting donors. It also aligns everyone’s incentives towards tangible progress.

• Community & Collaboration: By funding on an open platform, backers and project teams become part of a community. Researchers can attract not just money but also supporters who might contribute expertise, publicity, or connections. The public nature of updates means results (positive or negative) are shared widely, accelerating knowledge spread. This creates a virtuous cycle of open science, where even failed experiments inform others, and successful ones gain validation, all with the support of engaged citizen scientists.

In summary, healthspan.fund’s model empowers founders of longevity projects to access capital from a broad base without diluting their ownership or navigating grant bureaucracy, while empowering supporters to directly fuel innovations they care about and observe the impact of their contributions in real time. The transparent micro-funding approach aims to dramatically increase both the quantity and quality of funding for longevity research – funding that is patient, risk-tolerant, and mission-driven.

Platform Architecture and Workflow

The healthspan.fund platform is designed as a seamless web portal where projects and backers interact through a structured funding workflow. The core architecture encompasses project vetting and onboarding, pledge flow management, AI-assisted project scoring, and milestone tracking. Below we outline the end-to-end process and how each component works:

1. Project Submission and Vetting: Founders begin by submitting a project proposal through an online form. The proposal includes a clear research question or innovation, background context, methodology, a budget breakdown, and a timeline with defined milestones. Each submission undergoes an initial vetting process to maintain quality. We combine expert review and AI triage in this step:

• Identity and Credibility Check: The team’s credentials are verified (e.g. is the PI a real researcher? Does the startup exist?). Similar to Experiment.com’s approach of screening for reputable institutions, healthspan.fund ensures proposers are who they claim to be. This may involve ID verification and requiring an institutional email or references.
• AI Proposal Triage: Next, our AI module reviews the content of the proposal. Using state-of-the-art AI models (open-source large language models fine-tuned for scientific evaluation, e.g. an open model Gemini 2.5 Pro and OpenAI’s latest GPT-based model), the system performs an automated “peer review” pass. The AI assesses the proposal on predefined scoring criteria: significance of the problem, novelty of approach, feasibility (can the methods and team realistically achieve the goals), and alignment with healthspan.fund’s mission (focus on extending healthy lifespan). It flags any issues (e.g. extraordinary claims without evidence, budget not adding up, unclear experimental design) and gives preliminary scores in each category. Crucially, transparency mechanisms are built in – the AI’s evaluations and the criteria it used are visible to both the project team and the public. This might take the form of an “AI Review Report” attached to the proposal, so nothing happens behind closed doors. The role of AI here is to assist human reviewers by highlighting strengths and weaknesses and to ensure consistency in how projects are assessed. It is not a black-box gatekeeper; final decisions incorporate human judgment.
• Expert Approval: A volunteer Scientific Advisory Committee (experienced researchers and domain experts) then reviews the proposal, informed by the AI’s findings. They provide feedback to the project founders – perhaps asking for clarifications or suggesting milestone tweaks. Only projects that meet a baseline of scientific plausibility and integrity are approved to list on the platform. (Projects deemed not ready or inappropriate can revise and resubmit.) This vetting step balances inclusivity (welcoming unconventional ideas) with quality control to filter out pseudoscience or non-viable plans. Comparable platforms use similar vetting: FutSci, for instance, has a Scientific Advisory Committee vet projects for feasibility and accurate budgets. healthspan.fund leverages AI to make this process faster and more scalable, without replacing human oversight.

2. Campaign Launch and Pledge Flow: Once approved, the project campaign goes live on healthspan.fund for a defined fundraising period (e.g. 60–90 days). The campaign page displays the proposal, the team bios, the AI review summary, milestone targets, and funding goal. Supporters can now pledge funds with a smooth, user-friendly flow:

• A backer selects a project and chooses an amount to pledge. They can pay via various methods (credit card, PayPal, crypto, etc.). No crypto or special token is required – we emphasize accessibility, so a typical user can contribute with familiar payment options.

• All-or-Something Funding: By default, campaigns operate on an “all-or-nothing” principle (similar to Kickstarter/Experiment.com). The project must reach its minimum funding goal for the pledges to convert to donations. If the goal isn’t met by deadline, pledges aren’t collected (or are refunded) and the project isn’t funded. This protects donors from partially funded projects that may not execute well. However, healthspan.fund can also support flexible funding in cases where partial progress is still valuable – this is handled case-by-case and clearly indicated on the campaign.

• Pledge Allocation Options: Uniquely, healthspan.fund offers two modes for donors:

  • User-Guided Pledging: You can manually allocate your pledge to specific projects. For example, a supporter might split a $100 pledge: $50 to Project A, $30 to Project B, $20 to Project C. The platform interface makes it easy to distribute a single pledge across multiple campaigns if desired.
  • Automatic (Quadratic) Allocation: Alternatively, a donor can contribute to a general pool or simply indicate a set of favorite projects without splitting the amount. In this mode, healthspan.fund’s quadratic funding allocator kicks in to split the pledge intelligently. Inspired by Gitcoin’s quadratic funding model for public goods, our allocator will favor a distribution that maximizes the impact of each dollar by giving more weight to broadly supported projects. In practice, this means if the donor selects (or auto-selects) several projects they like, the system will allocate their funds such that projects with more community support get proportionally more. Quadratic allocation ensures that a project backed by many small donors is rewarded more than one backed by a few large donors. It’s “one donor, many votes”: your one donation can support multiple efforts, and the collective effect is that niche but popular projects rise to the top. Donors who opt for automatic mode essentially say “spread my contribution where it will do the most good according to community interest.” This lowers the research burden on donors – they can trust the platform to diversify their support optimally.

• Matching Funds (if available): As the platform grows, we plan to integrate a matching pool (sourced from philanthropies or major sponsors) that can amplify community donations via quadratic funding. For example, a foundation might provide $X in a quarter to be distributed among all projects; healthspan.fund would deploy those funds based on the distribution of individual donations, using the quadratic formula. This means small contributions get multiplied significantly, encouraging even modest-income supporters to participate since $10 could unlock, say, an extra $50 from the match pool for their chosen project. (Initially, the platform may launch without a large matching fund; even so, the quadratic style allocation can be applied to donor pledges alone to simulate a similar effect on a smaller scale.)

3. AI-Assisted Project Ranking and Discovery: During the live campaign phase, healthspan.fund provides tools to help backers discover and evaluate projects:

• Each project carries an AI-generated scorecard (from the vetting stage) and a community rating. Donors can see at a glance the AI’s assessment (e.g. “Impact: 8/10, Feasibility: 7/10, Novelty: High”) alongside any reviewer notes. Because we use open-source AI models for this, we can be transparent about the evaluation algorithm – even allowing tech-savvy users to inspect the code or contribute improvements. This openness helps avoid bias and builds trust in the AI’s role.
• A search and recommendation engine (also AI-driven) helps match donor interests with projects. For instance, a user particularly interested in senolytics or AI-biotech convergence might get recommended projects tagged with those topics. The platform might feature categories (therapeutic development, biomarker research, longevity tech, etc.) to organize campaigns.
• Real-time updates are shown as milestones are achieved or as projects gain traction. If a project hits 50% of its funding goal, or achieves an interim milestone even during fundraising (some teams might start work in parallel), those news are broadcast to potential backers. This dynamic content keeps the community engaged and informed, akin to how Kickstarter updates can spur more backing.

4. Milestone Tracking and Fund Release: After a successful funding campaign (meeting its goal), the project enters the execution phase with oversight via healthspan.fund:

• Funds pledged are collected and held by the platform (or a partner fiduciary entity) to be released according to the milestone schedule. The project team must regularly update their campaign page with public milestone reports. For example, if Milestone 1 was to “Complete experiment X and publish preliminary data”, the team will post the data (or a summary, with raw data in the data room) and a brief report on outcomes. Supporting documentation – lab results, photos, preprint links, etc. – are uploaded as evidence.
• Backers (and platform moderators) review the milestone submission. If the milestone is clearly met (criteria were predefined in the proposal), the next tranche of funds is unlocked and transferred to the team. If there’s a dispute – say the results are incomplete – the platform can pause funding and facilitate a discussion. In most cases, transparency and the project’s incentive to maintain credibility ensures honest reporting. Public milestones mean anyone can scrutinize the work. This is far more transparent than traditional grant reporting, yet it avoids draconian bureaucracy. Essentially, open progress tracking replaces complex compliance; the community’s eyes on the project create accountability.
• This structure also protects against misuse: a team that goes silent or fails to meet a milestone will not receive further funds, and donors could even vote on reassigning the remainder to other projects or back to the donors. The mere knowledge that updates must be public and funds are conditional tends to align project behavior with their promises, without needing heavy legal enforcement.
• Throughout the project execution, communication is maintained. Teams often post informal updates (“lab setup complete!”, “facing a challenge with assay, troubleshooting now”) which keeps backers in the loop and maintains enthusiasm. This is in line with best practices seen on Experiment.com and Lifespan.io, where regular updates to donors are expected and foster a sense of collaboration.

5. Completion and Results Sharing: Upon project completion (or even along the way), results are shared widely:

• If the project produces publishable findings, the data and manuscript might be shared in the platform’s data room (with appropriate provisions if the team aims for journal publication – e.g. perhaps a preprint can be posted). Backers are often acknowledged in papers (some projects might list top backers in the acknowledgments as a token of appreciation, much like donors are credited).
• Successful outcomes can be celebrated on healthspan.fund’s blog or newsletter, closing the loop for supporters. For example, if a crowdfunded trial leads to a discovery, we’ll highlight that story (much like Lifespan.io reported the results of the PEARL rapamycin trial that it crowdfunded).
• Even if a project fails to achieve expected results, the knowledge gained is documented openly. Negative results in aging research are still valuable to report (they save others from repeating the same mistake). By funding through healthspan.fund, the project implicitly agrees to share outcomes openly – contributing to the collective scientific knowledge base. This open science commitment is part of our ethos.

All these steps are facilitated by a secure web architecture with an intuitive UI. Backers have a personal dashboard to track the projects they’ve funded and see updates or adjust recurring donations. Founders have a project management console to post updates, manage their campaign, and request fund releases. The underlying system logs every pledge, every fund disbursement, and every milestone update, building an open archive of longevity research progress.

Role of AI in Project Triage and Evaluation

A standout feature of healthspan.fund is its use of advanced AI models to aid in project triage – ensuring we can scale to potentially hundreds of proposals while maintaining quality and fairness. We leverage both proprietary AI (such as OpenAI’s o3-high model for deep language analysis) and open-source models (such as a hypothetical Gemini 2.5 Pro fine-tuned on biomedical literature) to perform several functions:

• Proposal Analysis and Scoring: As mentioned, the AI reads each proposal and scores it across key dimensions. The scoring criteria are clearly published: for example, Impact (Does it significantly advance healthspan if successful?), Approach Soundness (Is the experimental design or protocol scientifically valid?), Team (Does the team have the expertise to execute?), Resources (Is the budget and equipment sufficient?), Risk vs Reward (Is it high-risk/high-reward or incremental?), and Ethical/Safety (are there any ethical red flags?). By quantifying these, we can rank proposals or identify which ones merit extra scrutiny. The AI might flag, say, that a project is very novel but has a low feasibility score – information our advisors and donors can use in decision-making.

• Consistency and Bias Reduction: Human reviewers can be inconsistent or biased (e.g. favoring well-known institutions). An AI model, applied uniformly, helps standardize the initial review. It doesn’t have inherent favoritism and looks solely at content provided. We also use multiple models (including open ones that the community can inspect) to reduce bias – if both an open-source model and a closed model agree on a score, we gain confidence. In cases of discrepancy, that alerts us to investigate further. All AI outputs are considered suggestions, not final judgments.

• Transparency of AI Decisions: We recognize the importance of explaining AI rationale, especially in a community-driven platform. Thus, for each AI-generated score or recommendation, the system can provide a plain-language explanation. For example: “The AI rated Feasibility 5/10 because the proposal’s timeline seems very short for the scope (it expects to run a year-long mouse study in 3 months) and the budget allocation for lab supplies appears underestimated.” This explanation is visible to the project team (so they can address it or correct any misunderstanding) and to backers. In this way, the AI’s role is not mysterious – it’s more like an assistant analyst whose notes everyone can read. We believe this level of transparency in AI usage is state-of-the-art among funding platforms; it mitigates the “black box” problem and allows the community to trust the process. If an AI error is spotted, we can correct it, and even allow a form of appeal or re-evaluation after changes.

• Continuous Learning: As the platform grows, we will retrain and refine the AI models using our accumulating data. We can incorporate outcomes: did projects that the AI scored highly end up succeeding or meeting milestones? This feedback can tune the model to better predict project success or flag risk factors. Over time, our AI could become increasingly adept at recognizing what a promising longevity project looks like (perhaps even identifying patterns from past successful proposals). We will share insights from this (e.g. “our AI found that projects with a well-defined biomarker for outcomes had a 20% higher success rate”) to benefit the broader community’s understanding of effective project design.

• Scalability: With AI handling much of the heavy lifting in initial review, healthspan.fund can scale to a larger number of campaigns without overwhelming our human team. This means we can accept more proposals (including from lesser-known investigators or global applicants) than a traditional small foundation could handle. It opens the door to global inclusion – a researcher in a developing country with a great idea could be evaluated on equal footing by the AI and platform, even if they lack connections to renowned institutions. This aligns with our mission to mobilize as many innovators as possible for healthy longevity.

In essence, AI in healthspan.fund acts like a second pair of eyes and an analytic brain, enhancing both the efficiency and fairness of project selection. By combining AI triage with human judgment and public transparency, we strive to create a trustworthy and smart funding pipeline – one that can rapidly surface the most exciting projects for community funding while providing constructive feedback to all applicants.

Capital Allocation via Quadratic Funding

One of the innovative aspects of healthspan.fund is how we allocate capital to projects when donors use our preference aggregator (the automatic pledge split mode). We adopt a quadratic funding approach – a mechanism that has proven extremely effective in funding public goods in the Web3 community (notably via Gitcoin).

Quadratic Funding Basics: In a quadratic funding system, the number of contributors to a project matters more than the amount contributed by each. It’s often described as optimizing for “the preferences of the poor and the many over the rich and the few”. In practice, the formula (originally formulated by Vitalik Buterin, Zoe Hitzig, and Glen Weyl) calculates matching funds such that a project with broad support from many individuals gets a larger boost than one with the same total funding from only a handful of donors.

For example, ten people giving $10 each (total $100 from 10 donors) would yield a higher matched amount than one person giving $100 (total $100 from 1 donor), under quadratic funding. This encourages widespread engagement and prevents one or two wealthy donors from solely steering the outcome. It’s a way to amplify grassroots interest: each additional donor increases the project’s weighted funding more than their dollar amount alone.

healthspan.fund’s Implementation: We incorporate this concept in two ways:

• Internal Matching of Donor Splits: When donors contribute to the general pool or choose auto-allocation, we treat their contribution as if it will be split among projects proportional to other donors’ choices. Essentially, every donor’s input is adding to a matrix of preferences. We then run a quadratic optimization to decide how much of each donor’s contribution goes to each project, maximizing the overall “satisfaction” (in economic terms). The result is that if a project has attracted many donors (even small ones), every new donor’s money will lean towards that project to a greater extent. Conversely, if only a few donors showed interest in a project, a new donor’s general contribution won’t disproportionately go there. This happens algorithmically, behind the scenes, unless the donor overrides with a manual selection.
• External Matching Pool: As mentioned, we anticipate partnering with organizations to create a matching pool. Quadratic funding truly shines when there is a pool of funds to distribute. In our model, if such a pool exists (say $100k available in a quarter), all the individual donations act as “votes” and the quadratic formula allocates the $100k across projects accordingly. A project with broad small-donor support might win, for example, $50k of the pool, whereas a niche project with just one big donor might get only a small fraction. This has been demonstrated by Gitcoin Grants, which every quarter deploys millions of dollars in matching funds using QF to support open-source projects. We envision doing similar for longevity research, possibly with funds from larger longevity philanthropies or corporate CSR budgets. It effectively supercharges community donations – a $1 contribution can turn into $10 or $50 for your chosen project when matching is applied.

User Experience: For the donor, this complexity is mostly under the hood. They will see maybe a “quadratic match in effect” badge or an estimate like “Your $50 contribution could effectively provide ~$200 to projects after matching”. If they allocate manually, we still might show the impact of their donation in terms of match (e.g. “Because 30 other people also funded Project X, your $10 triggers an additional $Y from the match pool to Project X”). This gives a satisfying feedback that small donations matter a lot.

Option for Donor Overrides: We also allow donors who prefer direct control to simply allocate 100% to their chosen project – effectively bypassing the quadratic allocator. healthspan.fund is flexible; our goal isn’t to force every dollar through a formula, but to provide the option that most increases collective impact. We believe many will opt in to quadratic auto-splitting once they understand it, as it aligns with supporting the ecosystem broadly. Those who have a singular passion can still do so directly.

Why Quadratic for Longevity Research? Longevity is a field with diverse approaches – from drugs, gene therapy, senolytics, epigenetic reprogramming, diagnostics, AI for aging, to supplements and policy. It’s beneficial to ensure plurality of support. Quadratic funding prevents all money from sloshing to the most hyped project and instead rewards projects that manage to convince a community of supporters. It acts as a defense against both over-reliance on big donors and against popularity contests where one project with shallow support of thousands would trump a deeply valuable project supported by a dedicated few – QF strikes a balance by considering both the breadth and depth of support. Given our mission to engage retail supporters, this method directly valorizes the number of people who believe in a project, which is a good proxy for community endorsement.

In summary, using a quadratic-style allocator helps healthspan.fund distribute capital in a way that is fair, democratic, and impact-focused. It’s a modern funding method that fits our platform’s ethos of community-driven, open science. By optionally utilizing this system, we aim to maximize the efficient use of funds, making sure each dollar goes where it can have the most collective benefit in accelerating healthspan science.

Transparency, Data Rooms, and Public Milestones for Accountability

Accountability is a cornerstone of healthspan.fund’s design. Donors must trust that their contributions lead to real progress, and project teams need an environment where they can demonstrate their work without onerous red tape. Our solution is to make the process itself transparent and thus self-regulating to a large extent, avoiding complex compliance burdens.

Transparent Data Rooms: Every project on healthspan.fund has a dedicated “data room” – essentially a repository or library of all relevant project documents and data, accessible to backers (and in most cases, to the public). This can include:

• The full project proposal and protocol details.
• Budget breakdown and receipts or expense reports as the project spends funds.
• Ethical approvals or regulatory documents (if human trials, for instance, they might upload IRB approvals, etc.).
• Research data generated: raw datasets, analysis scripts, images (microscopy, etc.), draft manuscripts or posters.
• Progress presentations or lab notes.

By keeping these materials in the open (with appropriate licensing to ensure, for example, that publishing later in a journal is not jeopardized – typically journals allow preprints and raw data sharing), we foster a culture of open science. It means any interested person can audit or even attempt to replicate findings, which keeps teams honest and diligent. This is similar to how some decentralized science projects operate by sharing data on public forums or using open-source principles for biology.

Public Milestones & Updates: As described in the workflow, project teams post updates at each milestone. These updates are not just private reports to a funding agency – they are public-facing posts on the project page, visible to all. This approach has multiple advantages:

• Backer Engagement: Supporters feel involved in the journey. They can see the project evolving, which builds a sense of community investment in the outcome. Platforms like Experiment.com have shown that regular updates lead to higher backer satisfaction and continued support in future campaigns.
• Crowd Oversight: Having milestones public invites feedback and questions from the community. If something seems off, you can expect knowledgeable backers (some of whom may themselves be scientists or clinicians) to ask for clarification. This crowdsourced oversight can catch issues that a single auditor might miss, and it encourages the team to address any concerns openly.
• Educational Value: The updates and data provide a learning resource for anyone following along. Students or enthusiasts interested in longevity research can witness how a study is conducted step by step. This demystifies the science and could inspire more people to get involved or donate.

Importantly, this transparency replaces heavy compliance. In a traditional grant, a research team might have to submit periodic technical reports to the funder and go through audits – processes that take time and paperwork and are seen only by the funder. In our model, the “report” is an update post that anyone can read, and the “audit” is simply the community looking at the data. We still maintain internal checks (our staff or advisors also review milestone evidence to formally approve fund release), but because everything is in the open, the need for secretarial oversight is minimized. In essence, if a project satisfies its backers and the public with its transparency and progress, that is our definition of compliance.

Limiting Administrative Burden: We want founders to spend their time doing science, not filing excessive forms. By using the platform’s structured update system, much of the reporting is templated and streamlined. A researcher can upload a dataset once for all to see, instead of sending it individually to dozens of stakeholders. The legal terms of donation (nonprofit grant-like) are simpler than investment terms, so there’s less paperwork at the start too.

Auditability: In cases where a deeper audit might be needed (say, allegations of fraud or misuse), the open data means an external expert could be invited to review the records, or an independent replication could be attempted. Because funds are released gradually, if something improper were discovered, the losses are limited and we can course-correct. Compare this to a scenario where a lab gets a large grant and only years later issues are found – by then the money is gone. healthspan.fund’s continuous oversight model mitigates that risk by catching problems early, thanks to transparency.

Examples and Inspiration: Crowdfunding platforms in science and tech have adopted elements of this. Lifespan.io requires that funded researchers share updates and outcomes with its community, leading to successes like the PEARL trial publication being attributed to backers’ support. Gitcoin in the open-source world makes all grant transactions public on Ethereum, creating a transparent ledger of contributions. VitaDAO, a decentralized autonomous organization funding longevity research, publishes its funded project proposals and milestones to its members for oversight. healthspan.fund builds on these precedents, aiming to set a new standard for radical transparency in research funding.

In summary, by providing transparent data rooms and making milestones public, healthspan.fund ensures that accountability is built into the platform. It turns what is traditionally a closed exchange of reports and money into an open dance of collaboration between funders and researchers. This not only keeps everyone honest but also accelerates the overall mission – because good ideas and data can spread and bad ideas can be identified early. We believe this open model will speed up the pace of longevity innovation while maintaining trust, all without encumbering researchers with unnecessary bureaucracy.

Legal Structure and Compliance Considerations

To operate effectively and inclusively, healthspan.fund has carefully defined its legal perimeter. Our aim is to maximize participation from both project creators and backers worldwide, while minimizing regulatory friction and ensuring ethical conduct. Here are the key legal and structural choices:

• Donation-Based Model: All contributions on healthspan.fund are treated as donations (grants) to the project teams, not investments or loans. Donors do not receive any equity, financial interest, or IP ownership in return – only the satisfaction of contributing to science (and possibly non-monetary rewards like updates, acknowledgments, or swag). This distinction is crucial: it means contributions are not securities, and healthspan.fund is not operating as a broker-dealer or investment portal. By sticking to a donation model, we avoid the complex securities regulations that platforms like Republic or equity crowdfunders must deal with. Anyone can donate without needing accreditation or wealth requirements. In many jurisdictions, donations for scientific research can be structured to be tax-deductible if routed through a registered non-profit – we plan to partner with or establish a suitable non-profit foundation to handle the funds, providing tax receipts to donors where applicable. This further incentivizes contributions and keeps things above-board legally.

• Terms of Use & Risk Disclosure: The platform’s terms make clear that donations are philanthropic in nature and there is no guarantee of outcomes. We will be transparent that projects are experimental and may fail – donors should give knowing this is about supporting a cause, not purchasing a product. This manages expectations and protects against misrepresentation claims. We also clarify that we facilitate the connection between donors and projects, but we do not guarantee scientific results (similar to how Kickstarter’s Terms protect them by putting the onus on project creators to fulfill promises).

• Project Contracts: When a project is funded, the funding is formalized as a grant agreement between the healthspan.fund affiliated non-profit (or donor collective) and the project team (or their institution). This simple agreement will outline the milestone terms, reporting obligations, and what happens if milestones aren’t met (e.g. potential cancellation of remaining funds). Because it’s a donation, IP typically remains with the researchers, though we encourage an open-access orientation. We don’t demand IP rights; however, if a project does generate IP and succeeds commercially later, we may have a clause encouraging (but not enforcing) giving back a small royalty or success donation to the fund to sustain the ecosystem. That said, core to the legal approach is low friction: the agreement is much simpler than a venture capital term sheet or a government grant contract. Teams won’t need a battery of lawyers to participate.

• Regulatory Compliance: Since we are not dealing with securities, many crowdfunding regulations (like U.S. SEC Regulation Crowdfunding limits) do not directly apply. However, we still must comply with basic laws:

  • Anti-fraud: We will actively monitor and ban fraudulent campaigns. Our vetting and transparency help here (fraudsters usually fear scrutiny).
  • Money handling: Working with a reputable payment processor or fiscal sponsor to handle funds is important. We might use a payment gateway that escrows the money until conditions are met. This ensures we abide by financial laws for holding funds on behalf of others. If using a non-profit, donor-advised fund or similar, they might legally hold the funds and disburse as grants.
  • International considerations: We welcome global projects and donors. We’ll ensure to follow any cross-border donation laws and sanctions compliance. Because it’s donations, it’s generally simpler than cross-border investments, but we’ll still have KYC/AML checks for large donors or if required (to prevent money laundering under the guise of donations).
  • Liability: Donors are not liable for what the researchers do; conversely, researchers carry their own liability for their research (e.g. if they’re doing a clinical trial, they must have IRB and insurance, etc.). Our terms will have indemnity clauses protecting the platform from being responsible for research mishaps – we are a facilitator, not the conductors of the research.

• Ethics and Human Subjects: For projects involving human trials or sensitive experiments, we require evidence of proper ethical approval (like IRB) during vetting. We won’t allow anything that violates basic research ethics. The legal structure emphasizes that projects must comply with their local laws and ethical guidelines for research. We might provide guidance or templates for this, but ultimately it’s the project’s responsibility to operate legally. Our platform simply verifies those approvals are in place.

• No Tokens or Coins Required: Unlike some DeSci initiatives, we are not launching a cryptocurrency or token as a prerequisite to use the platform. This is deliberate to reduce friction – users don’t need to manage a crypto wallet or worry about token regulations. If in the future we have a token for governance or rewards, it will be purely optional and carefully structured (perhaps as a donation reward point system) and only implemented if it doesn’t introduce regulatory complexity. We note that Republic and some crowdfunding sites have explored tokens (Republic has a profit-sharing token for investors), but those can complicate things. Our initial model is straightforward: fiat (or crypto if one chooses) in, donation out.

Overall, by keeping within a donation-based, non-profit framework and emphasizing transparency over enforcement, we believe healthspan.fund can operate in a wide legal berth safely. We reduce the barriers for scientists (who might shy away if they had to give equity or navigate investor contracts) and for donors (who can contribute as easily as to a charity or Kickstarter campaign). The legal simplicity is a strategic choice to accelerate adoption and focus on impact rather than paperwork. We will, of course, continuously consult with legal experts to adapt to any new regulations (for example, if any country decides to treat crowdfunded research in specific ways), but the foundation of donation-based micro-funding has plenty of successful precedents to model on (e.g., charity fundraisers, academic fundraising campaigns, etc.).

Platform Roadmap and Success Metrics

healthspan.fund is not just a concept but a work in progress. We outline below our development roadmap from the current pre-launch phase through full platform maturity, along with key milestones and success indicators at each stage. This roadmap ensures prospective backers and founders know what to expect and how we plan to grow and measure our impact.

Pre-Launch (Current Stage):

• Tasks: Architecture design, forming partnerships, and community building. We are finalizing the platform design (both technical architecture and legal structure) and onboarding a core group of pilot projects. Partnerships with longevity research institutions, advocacy groups, and potential matching funders are being secured. We are also curating a pool of experts for the advisory committee and training our AI models on sample data.
• Goals: By the end of pre-launch, have at least ~5 high-quality pilot projects ready to crowdfund, a committed initial user base (perhaps via newsletter sign-ups or a waiting list) of at least a few hundred longevity enthusiasts, and a functional MVP (minimum viable product) of the platform undergoing internal testing.
• Success KPIs: Successful alpha test of the AI scoring on historical project data (e.g., can our AI sensibly score past projects from Lifespan.io or Experiment.com?), positive feedback from pilot testers on the platform usability, and at least one partnership or sponsorship deal signed (e.g., a small matching pool commitment from a longevity fund or endorsement by a known figure in the field).

Alpha Launch: (Closed launch with invited projects and donors)

• We will initiate an alpha round of funding with the curated pilot projects. This will likely be invite-only or limited to a small community (perhaps members of a longevity forum or early subscribers). The purpose is to test the end-to-end flow in a real setting with real money, but controlled scale.
• Features: Core features like project pages, pledging, milestone posting, and AI scoring will be live, albeit possibly rough around edges. The quadratic allocator might be tested in a simplified form if multiple projects are funded in parallel.
• Goals: Fund 3–5 projects in alpha, each reaching a modest goal (e.g. $10k each) to validate the concept. Work out any kinks in payment processing, escrow, AI feedback, etc.
• Success KPIs: % of alpha projects that reach funding goal, number of alpha backers (aim for ~100+), and qualitative feedback from both donors and project teams. Also, measuring how the AI scores aligned with eventual community interest (did projects the AI rated highly tend to attract more funding? Any biases observed?).

Beta Launch (Public Beta):

• After incorporating alpha feedback, we open the platform to the public (wider audience) but label it as beta. More projects are welcome to apply, and anyone can sign up to donate.
• Features: By beta, we plan to implement more polished functionality: user dashboards, a basic recommendation engine, improved UI for the quadratic funding option, and enhanced community features (commenting on updates, etc.). We may also pilot the blockchain ledgering feature in beta as an option (see next section) – e.g., publishing a public ledger of donations for transparency.
• Goals: Increase scale. Perhaps 10–15 active campaigns over the beta period, including a mix of research areas. Onboard a larger user base through outreach and maybe small PR campaigns. Ensure the platform can handle hundreds of simultaneous users, and refine the AI and allocation algorithms under heavier use.
• Success KPIs: Total funding raised in beta (aiming for at least $100k across projects to prove meaningful traction), number of active users (target 1000+ registered backers), average donation size, and engagement metrics (comments, shares, etc.). Also, milestone completion rate – we want to see that projects are indeed delivering first milestones in beta to validate our model’s effectiveness. Another KPI is the diversity of funded projects (different topics, geography, etc.), showing broad appeal.

Full Launch (v1.0):

• With beta proven, we officially launch healthspan.fund publicly as a stable platform. This would come with media outreach, possibly an event or webinar, and strong positioning within both the longevity community and crowdfunding space.
• Features: v1.0 would include the complete suite: fully refined AI scoring dashboard visible to users, the quadratic funding system possibly backed by an initial matching fund (if we’ve secured a sponsor by then), community voting or governance features (perhaps allowing the community to vote periodically on which areas the platform should focus on or which large grants to offer), and integration with external tools (for instance, an API to pull project data for those who want to analyze it).
• We also envision by full launch to have mobile-friendly or an app, to maximize accessibility.
• Goals: Regular funding rounds or rolling campaigns continuously. We may transition into a model where campaigns can start anytime, or we might have “cohorts” of campaigns every quarter.
• Success KPIs: By the end of the first year post-launch, we might target something like: >50 projects funded, >$1M total raised, >5,000 donors participated. We also care about project success: a key metric is how many funded projects achieved their stated milestones and/or published results. We’ll track outcomes (publications, patents, follow-on funding to the project from other sources) as long-term impact KPIs. Another important KPI is retention – do donors come back to fund more projects (which would indicate satisfaction), and do successful project teams return with new projects or attract follow-on support.
• We will also measure the effectiveness of our AI and quadratic system: e.g., donor usage of the auto-allocation option (what % choose it), and if matching funds are in play, how much they increased effective funding.

Scaling and Growth (Post-launch):

• Beyond the initial launch year, healthspan.fund would look to scale up in multiple dimensions: more projects, larger average project sizes (maybe moving from $50k projects to $500k projects as trust and track record build), and possibly branching into related domains (like general health research, though our brand is longevity-focused).
• We might implement advanced features like a secondary marketplace for donation “impact certificates” (if we choose to explore hypercerts or similar), deeper integration with academic institutions (perhaps allowing university development offices to use healthspan.fund for their aging-related labs), and formalizing a governance system (backers or experts helping to set platform policies).
• Success KPIs: In the long run, our success is defined by becoming a significant funding source in the longevity field. For perspective, the NIH spends billions annually on aging research; while we don’t aim to match that, we’d like to see healthspan.fund facilitating tens of millions per year in a few years’ time. Also, breakthrough metric: if even one major longevity breakthrough (say a new therapeutic approach or a pivotal study) credits healthspan.fund as a key early funder, that is a huge success.

We will publish our platform metrics transparently – including how funds are used, our operational overhead, etc. Being open about our own performance is part of the ethos. Backers and project owners should see not only individual project progress but also how the platform as a whole is accelerating the longevity mission.

Optional Future Features: Blockchain Ledgering & Decentralization

In keeping with our commitment to transparency and innovation, healthspan.fund is exploring optional features that leverage blockchain technology for enhanced trust and decentralization. We emphasize that these are optional and will not be mandatory for users, as we want to avoid creating technical barriers. Still, for those interested, such features could add another layer of credibility to the platform:

• Blockchain-based Transparency: We can integrate a blockchain (such as Ethereum or a lightweight alternative) as a public ledger for all transactions and milestones. Every donation, every fund release, and every milestone verification could be recorded as a transaction or an event on a blockchain. This provides an immutable, time-stamped record that anyone can audit independently of our platform. For example, a donor could verify on Etherscan (if Ethereum is used) that their donation was indeed transferred to the project’s account on a certain date, and a milestone report hash was posted. This kind of system has been prototyped in academic contexts – ensuring that every transaction can be transparently tracked, removing any possibility of funds being redirected unnoticed. In essence, it’s like having a public bulletin board that mirrors our internal database.

• Smart Contract Escrows: Taking it a step further, funding for projects could be held in smart contracts that automatically release funds upon proof of milestone completion. For instance, when the community (or designated oracles) signal that Milestone X is achieved, a smart contract could disburse the next tranche to the researcher’s crypto wallet. This automation can enforce the rules without manual intervention. However, implementing this requires that both donors and projects are comfortable using crypto wallets – which is why we’d introduce it as an optional path. A project team might opt in to a “blockchain-backed campaign”, attracting donors who prefer trustless systems, while others might stick with the normal web interface where we handle escrow traditionally.

• No Tokenization Required: A crucial point is that using blockchain for transparency does not require a platform token or forcing users into cryptocurrency. We can have a hybrid model: users donate in USD or other currency, we internally convert and log the movement on-chain via stablecoins or just log an identifier on-chain. If a donor wants nothing to do with blockchain, they don’t need to interact with it – we handle it in the backend for auditability. If a donor or project is crypto-savvy, they could interact directly (e.g. donate in crypto to the smart contract). We do not plan to issue a bespoke token for fundraising (no “healthspan coin” or such, unless in the future a governance token is considered, but again optional and not for fundraising). This keeps the barrier to entry low for the average user while still reaping the benefits of blockchain’s transparency for those who care.

• Decentralized Governance (Future): Over time, we might transition to a more decentralized governance model – perhaps forming a DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) of healthspan.fund supporters and experts. Such a DAO could vote on which projects to admit (complementing the AI/advisor vetting) or how to allocate a large matching pool, etc. VitaDAO is an example where a community of token holders collectively funds longevity research and even holds IP rights. We can take inspiration from that without copying the need for token incentives. For instance, we might allow long-time donors to become part of a “community council” that has input on platform decisions. If this is put on-chain (e.g. votes tallied via a governance token), it would add resilience and community ownership to the platform. Again, this would be a gradual, careful evolution, ensuring it adds value rather than confusion.

• Hypercerts or Impact Certificates: Another blockchain-related concept is hypercerts, which are basically NFTs representing an impact claim (like “contributed to X research outcome”). healthspan.fund could issue NFTs or digital badges to backers of projects, which live on a blockchain as proof of their support. These might have value in reputation (showing you backed the early research of a drug that later became big, for example). Unlike typical crowdfunding trinkets, an NFT badge is verifiable and tradeable (though our intention is more for recognition than speculation). This feature would be purely opt-in – users who want a blockchain badge can connect a wallet; others can ignore it and still get normal recognition on the platform.

In implementing any blockchain features, we will do so in a way that does not detract from user experience. The core platform will always allow a user to simply sign up with an email, use a credit card, and fund projects – straightforwardly. The blockchain layer runs in parallel for those who seek maximal transparency or want to integrate with the broader DeSci ecosystem on Web3.

Our stance is pragmatic: we adopt tech that furthers our mission of transparency and community trust, but we avoid the pitfalls of hype. There’s no mandatory token, no speculative ICO, no requirement that scientists learn Web3 to get funding. Instead, we harness blockchain much like a back-office feature that enhances record-keeping and could enable future decentralization.

By blending Web2 ease-of-use with Web3 transparency, healthspan.fund can appeal to both mainstream users and decentralization enthusiasts. This optional blockchain-enabled path future-proofs the platform and aligns us with the emerging decentralized science movement, all while keeping our primary focus on funding longevity research effectively.

---

Conclusion

healthspan.fund aims to transform the landscape of longevity and healthspan research funding. By addressing the funding problem – the gap for translational, high-risk projects – with a transparent, community-driven micro-funding model, we unlock a new avenue to accelerate innovation in extending healthy human life. Our platform’s architecture combines the best elements of successful funding models:

• the accessibility and broad participation of crowdfunding (drawing lessons from Experiment.com and Lifespan.io’s successes in engaging the public),
• the intelligent allocation of resources seen in quadratic funding (pioneered by Gitcoin to democratize support for public goods),
• and the accountability and openness championed by the decentralized science movement (ensuring that research outputs are shared and projects held to their commitments).

For prospective backers, healthspan.fund offers a front-row seat to scientific progress – you can fund the change you want to see in the world and witness it unfold milestone by milestone. The platform’s use of advanced AI and transparent reporting means you can trust that your hard-earned money is directed to credible projects and making a difference. Whether you’re a seasoned longevity enthusiast or simply someone who cares about healthier aging, you can now directly catalyze breakthroughs, even with a small contribution.

For researchers and project founders, healthspan.fund is a new funding lifeline. It’s a chance to obtain resources for bold ideas without jumping through traditional hoops or surrendering control to investors. Instead, you’ll build a community of supporters and benefit from the collective wisdom and validation that comes from engaging with the public. The platform’s structure encourages rigorous planning (with milestones and peer review), which in itself can strengthen project design. And the micro-funding approach means science is funded on its merit and public appeal, rather than solely on institutional pedigree or profit forecasts.

Our commitment is that as we grow, we remain mission-focused and adaptive. We will refine the platform based on user feedback and real-world results, iterating our AI models, funding mechanisms, and features to better serve the longevity community. Success for healthspan.fund will ultimately be measured by the impact of the projects we help launch – new therapies in the pipeline, new insights published, and eventually, tangible extensions in healthy lifespan for people everywhere. Those are the outcomes we strive for, and every donor and founder who joins us becomes a partner in that mission.

Together, through healthspan.fund, founders and supporters can overcome the financial barriers in translational longevity research. By pooling resources, sharing knowledge openly, and leveraging cutting-edge technology, we can accelerate the arrival of breakthroughs that help everyone lead longer, healthier lives. The grand challenge of healthy human longevity demands new solutions – healthspan.fund is proud to be building one such solution, and we invite you to join us in this endeavor.

Sources:

1. Fight Aging!, "The Challenge of Achieving Healthy Human Longevity", highlighting risk-aversion in traditional research funding.
2. Lifespan.io, "Supporting Aging and Rejuvenation Research", on how ambitious longevity research is often unfunded under status quo.
3. VitaDAO Medium, "Funding: The Single Biggest Factor Limiting Longevity Research", discussing the “valley of death” in translational research and need for new funding models.
4. VitaDAO Medium, "Funding: The Single Biggest Factor...", on limitations of traditional philanthropy and why crowdfunding hasn’t fully translated to biotech yet.
5. Lab Manager, "A Look at Science-Specific Crowdfunding Sites", describing Experiment.com’s model (all-or-nothing funding and vetting) and FutSci’s vetting process.
6. Lifespan.io, "Crowdsourcing the Cure for Aging", reporting $750k raised for 9 projects via crowdfunding, leveraging DeSci principles.
7. Lifespan.io News, "Results of a Crowdfunded One-Year Human Rapamycin Trial", example of a successfully crowdfunded longevity trial (PEARL) publishing results.
8. Gitcoin Blog, "Quadratic Funding = Wisdom of the Crowds", explaining quadratic funding’s democratic allocation and impact amplification.
9. Wikipedia (Republic fintech), noting scale of Republic’s retail investor community and funds deployed via crowdfunding investments.
10. VitaDAO Medium, reference to VitaDAO’s decentralized approach where community votes on funding longevity research (inspiration for future governance).
11. Study (IEEE Xplore), concept of using blockchain for secure and transparent crowdfunding, ensuring every transaction is publicly verifiable.

Conclusion

By combining transparent funding mechanisms with rigorous AI-guided evaluation and deep expertise from the 199 ecosystem, healthspan.fund creates an unprecedented opportunity to democratize access to longevity science funding while maintaining the highest standards of scientific rigor and community accountability.