Incentive Differentiation Model

Equitable DAO Governance

Ah-ha-moment Architecture

As an individual, a single patient does not have enough capital or a big enough voice to jumpstart drug discovery. However, as a collective, they do. As an example, imagine each patient having 5 power points. In today's world, patients proxy their power points into disease-targeted research through siloed 3rd parties, i.e., Universities, Labs, Foundations, Patient Advocacy Groups, etc. In the end, patients are left funding the majority of the capital and providing ALL the data to bring a drug to market however are given ZERO ownership for their efforts. Maneki thus decided to build a space for patients to collectively group their power points(money and data) together to form a larger more powerful pool, allowing them to take back control of the drugs they help create from BioPharma in order to have a more sustainable and equitable drug discovery pipeline.

Governance

Maneki will have 2 classes of ownership, respectively representing voting power and shares of the backend profit. We believe that capital-incentive and patient-incentive must be separated in order to have sound governance. Pay-for-votes governance is broken and leaves capital incentives in the main seat, leaving behind those voting based on non-monetary interests. By separating the classes, we will be able to have sound governance mechanisms while also being attractive for capital investment.

Voting Power allows token holders to vote on proposals regarding the direction and amount of funds to be sent to kickoff a particular project. This allows patients and researchers to remain in the driver seat of decision around capital distribution.

Backend Share allows token holders to receive backend profits from any drugs created/purchased by the collective and allows for investment/monetary based incentives to still play out while not polluting the governance model with selfish monetary based arbitrage that may end up hurting patients. Separating this into its own class fixes that problem.

Voting Power / Ownership

• Patients 50%

• Maneki 1% (Programmatically votes in favor of patient majority)

• Researchers 40%

• Funders 9%

Backend Share / Royalties

• Funders 50%

• Patients 15%

• Researchers 15%

• Maneki 20%

Advantages of Digital Collectives

1. Participatory decision making, and equal ownership for patients, researchers and other stakeholders.

2. Uncompromised design for ultimate security while also being hack proof and tamper proof.

3. Resistant to governance and monetization capture - Cannot purchase votes, votes are free but must prove importance to receive vote

4. Only patients and researchers, rather than profit-driven parties or venture capitalists, should have the right to vote on the use of donated funds. These parties should not be able to participate in the voting process.

5. We never sell patient data without their knowledge or consent, and we are committed to providing them with the opportunity to sell their own data if they choose to do so.