u/Pieliee

Heard voices telling me the Multiverse will "reveal" itself.

Heard voices that where messing with me and told me about the Multiverse and winning a Nobel price. Years later I met my loving wife in a psychiatry named 'Multiverse'

This led me to create a project you can find here
https://interstellar-psychology.com

"Maybe the crazy ones aren't crazy"

reddit.com
u/Pieliee — 2 days ago

Built a peer-reviewed UAP evidence archive where records can't be silently deleted — looking for the first independent reviewers

A pattern that keeps repeating in this space: a credible-looking record surfaces, gets picked over for a week, and then quietly disappears — taken down, edited, or buried under noise. There's no audit trail of who vetted it, no permanent receipt, and a year later you can't tell whether the community judged it credible or just lost interest.

I spent the last several months building something that tries to fix that. It's a public archive where:

  • Every submission is content-hashed and anchored to a public ledger the moment it's posted. Nothing in the archive can be silently edited or deleted after the fact.
  • A peer set with verifiable identities votes each record toward canon or expelled under a defined 7-state lifecycle. Votes, reversals, and the identity of every peer who participated are permanently auditable.
  • Anyone can read the full archive without an account or login. Submitting or voting requires a wallet; reading does not.

Why I'm posting

The system is live but cold. The peer set is currently me, and the archive holds a handful of seed records I submitted myself to exercise the contracts end-to-end. None of this matters until there are independent peers reviewing real submissions from people other than me. So this is an honest call for a first cohort, not a launch announcement.

What I'm asking for, in priority order:

  1. Reviewers — people willing to be peers. Useful backgrounds: investigators, scientists, journalists who've worked the beat, anyone with a track record of separating signal from noise.
  2. Critics of the governance design — quorum scaling, the canon/expelled lifecycle, what happens if a peer set gets captured. I want this stress-tested.
  3. Submitters — researchers sitting on records they want preserved with a permanent timestamp and a public review trail.

Disclosure: I built this. No token, no fundraising, no paid tier. Submitting costs a few cents of gas; reading is free. Happy to answer anything in the comments.

Archive (browse without a verified account, Audit with Metamask Wallet): 
https://interstellar-psychology.com/evidence/

reddit.com
u/Pieliee — 3 days ago