I think the main thing the blockchain can bring is not necessarily financial, but social. It would be difficult without primary and centralised investors to consistently fund projects, but as a little extra side incentive for the individuals - a big deal in poorer countries where they depend on sci-hub just to get the citations they need, for example - by encouraging them to simplify and popularize their content in a social media environment.
The problem I see as it stands is that people are becoming alienated to science because it's just not accessible to the regular layman. A bunch of equations come along and people have already moved on to the next pop-sci video about how avocados can revolutionise the car industry.
If scientists are incentivised to make their personal work more appealing to the masses, it could really pave the way to a more informed society, and I think blockchaining is the best way to do that. Not sure how with the details yet... still working on that
I think you actually mix two things here. You have scientific research on the one hand, that may be cryptic for anyone external to a given field, and communicating about it (that could go through a social medium). What is true is that scientists are very bad with communication. Very few actually communicate at all with the general public, and this is a real problem. I am belonging to a class of people who really think that this is a part of our jobs. This is also the reason why I write a post on steem about most of my papers (without any single equation;) ). I am trying to convince others (from my field) to do it, start blogging, etc... but this takes time. In my case, it is true that I may publish one paper less every year. But I think the counterpart is worthy.
You are one of the good guys =D
Thanks :D