Author: 100y.eth Source: X, @100y_eth Translation: Shan Oppa, Golden Finance

Academic circles have collapsed, but DeSci is not a panacea either.

I recently received my Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering and published four first-author papers during my studies. This includes publications in some of the top academic journals, including Nature’s sister journals and the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS).

Although my academic experience is limited to graduate students and not as a principal researcher, which may be an incomplete perspective, I have noticed many structural problems within the system in the last six years of experience in academia.

In this context, the idea that DeSci (Decentralized Science) uses blockchain technology to challenge centralized structures in science is undoubtedly fascinating. The crypto market has been swept by the DeSci trend recently, with many claiming it can revolutionize the field of science.

I also hope this change. However, I don’t think the chances of DeSci completely subverting traditional academic circles are high. To sum up my point of view, the most likely scenario is that DeSci will play a complementary role in solving specific problems in traditional academic systems.

So, given all the recent enthusiasm for DeSci, I would like to take this opportunity to explore some of the structural issues in traditional academia based on my brief experience, assess whether blockchain technology can really solve these problems, and discuss the potential impact of DeSci on academia.

1. Sudden DeSci craze 1.1 DeSci: From a niche concept to an evolving movement

The long-standing structural problems in academia have long been well documented, as seen in VOX's articles such as "270 Scientists Think of the Seven Biggest Problems Facing Science" and "The War to Liberate Science." Over the years, countless attempts have been made to address these challenges, some of which will be discussed later.

DeSci's concept, which solves these problems by integrating blockchain technology into scientific research, did not begin to attract attention until around 2020. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong by ResearchHub introduces this idea to the crypto community with the aim of reorienting incentives in science through ResearchCoin (RSC).

However, due to the speculative nature of crypto market capital, DeSci failed to attract widespread interest from users. For a long time, only small communities have supported its future—until the emergence of pump.science.

1.2 Butterfly effect of pump.sci

pump.science is a DeSci project in the Solana ecosystem built by the famous DeSci platform Molecule. It serves as a funding platform while streaming long-term experiments using Wormbot technology. Users can propose compounds they believe can extend their lifespan, or buy tokens related to these ideas.

Once the token's market value exceeds a certain threshold, experiments are performed using the Wormbot device to verify whether the compound can really extend the lifespan of the test subject. If successful, the token holder will receive the right to the compound. (However, some community members criticized the approach, claiming that the experiment lacked enough scientific rigor and was unlikely to produce a truly long-lasting drug. Gwart’s ironic remarks reflect a specific school of thought that they are skeptical of DeSci and question the arguments raised by their supporters.)

pump.science adopts a bonding curve mechanism similar to Molecule, meaning that token prices will rise as more users buy. The launch of tokens such as RIF (for rifampin) and URO (for urolithin A) coincides with the meme token craze in the crypto market, pushing up their prices. This surge in price has inadvertently attracted widespread attention to DeSci. Ironically, it is not the essence of DeSci, which triggers the current wave of interest in DeSci, but the speculative rise in token prices.

DeSci has long been a niche field in the rapidly growing crypto market, and in November 2024, it became one of the hottest narratives. pump.scNot only has ience's token soared, Binance also announced its investment in DeSci-funded Agreement Bio, while other mature DeSci tokens have also experienced significant price increases, marking a critical moment in the movement.

2. The shortcomings of traditional science

It is no exaggeration to say that the academic community faces many systematic and serious problems. During my academic work, I constantly questioned how such a flawed structure can remain sustainable. Before we dive into the potential of DeSci, let’s take a look at the shortcomings of traditional academic systems.

2.1 Systemic Challenge 1: Funding

2.1.1 Evolution of R&D Funding

Before the 19th century, scientists obtained research funds and made a living in a very different way than today:

Sponsored: European monarchs and nobles provided financial support to researchers to increase their reputation and promote scientific progress. For example, Galileo was sponsored by the Medici family, allowing him to continue his telescope development and astronomical research. In the Middle Ages, institutions also played a role in promoting scientific development, with churches and clergy funding research in astronomy, mathematics and medicine.

Self-raising funds: Many scientists maintain their research through personal income from other professions. They serve as university professors, faculty, writers or engineers, funding their scientific careers.

At the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, centralized funding systems for enterprises began to take root. During the First and Second World Wars, various institutions were established and huge investments were invested in defense research to ensure the victory of the war.

In the United States, organizations such as the Aviation Advisory Committee (NACA) and Research Committee (NRC) were established during World War I. Similarly, in Germany, Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft, the predecessor of today’s German Research Foundation (DFG), was founded in 1920. Around the same time, corporate research laboratories such as Bell Labs and General Electric Research also appeared, marking a transformation for companies to actively fund R&D.

This enterprise-driven funding model has become the norm and has continued to this day. and enterprises allocate a large amount of budget for R&D to support R&D around the worldResearcher. For example, in 2023, the U.S. federal spending on R&D was as high as $190 billion, an increase of 13% from 2022.

In the United States, the funding process involves federal allocation of part of the budget to research and development. The funds are then allocated to various institutions. Notable examples include: Institute of Health (NIH), the largest funder of biomedical research; the Department of Defense (DoD), focusing on defense research; the Science Foundation (NSF), funding interdisciplinary science and engineering; the Department of Energy (DOE), responsible for renewable energy and nuclear physics; and the NASA, supporting space and aeronautical research.

2.1.2 Centralized funding distorted science

Today, it is almost impossible for university professors to conduct research independently without external funding. Therefore, they are forced to rely on or financial support from the business. Many issues that affect the modern academic community stem from this centralized funding model.

The first major problem is the inefficiency of the funding process. Although process details vary by organization, it is generally described as long, opaque and inefficient.

In order to obtain funding, the research laboratory must undergo a large amount of paperwork and demonstration, be subject to or rigorous evaluation by the enterprise. While a well-known and mature lab can earn millions or even tens of millions of dollars from a single grant, reducing the frequency of participation in the funding process, this is not the norm.

For most laboratories, funds are usually only tens of thousands of dollars, requiring repeated applications, large amounts of documents and ongoing review. Talk to graduate friends shows that many researchers and students are unable to devote their time to the study. Instead, they are consumed by tasks related to funding applications and participation in corporate projects.

In addition, many of these corporate projects are almost unrelated to students' graduation research, highlighting the inefficiency of the system.

Spend a lot of time on funding applications may eventually be rewarded, but unfortunately, getting funds is not easy. According to NSF, funding rates for 2023 and 2024 are 29% and 26% respectively, the median annual appropriation is only $150,000. Similarly, NIH reports show that funding success rates are typically between 15% and 30%. Since a single grant is often not sufficient to sustain the work of many academic researchers, they are forced to apply multiple times to maintain their work.

The challenge did not end there. Socialism plays a crucial role in obtaining funds. Professors often work with their peers rather than applying independently to increase their chances of getting funding. It is also not uncommon for professors to lobby informally with funding stakeholders to receive corporate funding. This dependence on social interaction and the lack of transparency in funding selection processes are a major obstacle for early career researchers to try to enter the system.

Another major problem with centralized funding is the lack of incentives for long-term research. Funding that lasts for more than five years is extremely rare. According to the NSF, most grants are 1-5 years in duration, and other institutions follow a similar pattern. Corporate R&D projects also usually offer 1-3 years of grants, depending on the company and project.

has a great impact on funding. For example, during Trump, defense research and development funds increased significantly, while under the leadership of the Democratic Party, funds tend to be concentrated on environmental research. Long-term funding projects are not common as priorities change with the agenda.

Company funding also faces similar restrictions. In 2022, the median term of the S&P 500 CEO was 4.8 years, and other executives also had similar terms. Given that companies must adapt quickly to changing industries and technologies, and these executives often make funding decisions, corporate-funded projects rarely last long.

The centralized funding system therefore inspires researchers to pursue projects that can produce fast and tangible results. To obtain ongoing funding, researchers were forced to achieve results within five years, thereby selecting research topics that match this schedule. This makes the short-term focus cycle long, so only a few groups or institutions conduct long-term projects that take more than five years.

As the pressure to achieve results quickly, centralized funding has also prompted researchers to produce a large number of low-quality work. Research can be divided into incremental progress slightly constructed on the basis of existing knowledge, as well as breakthrough discoveries that create new fields. The centralized funding system naturally places the first option above the second. Most research published outside of top journals provides incremental improvements rather than transformative insights.

While modern science has become highly specialized, making breakthrough discoveries more challenging, centralized funding systems make the problem worse by further hindering innovative research. This systematic preference for incremental work is another obstacle to the revolutionary progress of science.

Some researchers even manipulate data or make false statements. The current funding mechanism that requires results within a pressing time creates incentives for such misconduct. As a graduate student, it is not uncommon to hear news that students from other labs are forged data. According to Nature, the proportion of withdrawals in conferences and journals has increased dramatically over time.

2.1.3 Don't be misled: centralized funding is inevitable

It should be clarified that centralized funding itself is not a bad thing. While this funding model has led to these negative side effects, it is crucial to modern science. Unlike in the past, today's scientific research is very complex and meticulous. A graduate student research project can cost thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, while large-scale projects such as defense, aerospace, or basic physics require exponentially more resources.

Centralized funding is essential, but the problems that follow must be addressed.

2.2 Systemic Challenge 2: Journal

2.2.1 Journal Business Overview

Companies such as Tether, Circle (stablecoin issuer), Binance and Coinbase (centralized exchanges) are regarded as leaders in the crypto industry. Similarly, in academia, the most powerful entity is academic journals. Important examples include Elsevier, Springer Nature, Vealy, American Chemical Society and IEEE.

Esevier, for example, generated $3.67 billion in revenue and $2.55 billion in net profit in 2022, achieving an amazing net profit margin of nearly 70%. By comparison, Nvidia's net profit margin hovered around 55-57% in 2024. Meanwhile, Springer Nature recorded $1.44 billion in revenue in the first nine months of 2024 alone, highlighting the enormous size of the academic publishing business.

Academic journalsTypical sources of income include:

Subscription fee: Visiting papers published in journals usually requires a subscription or a one-time payment to access a specific article.

Article processing fees (APCs): Many papers have paid walls. However, authors can choose to pay for publication, making their articles open to access.

License and reprint: In most cases, copyright is transferred to the publisher at the time of publication. Journals monetize these papers through educational or commercial licenses.

2.2.2 Journals: The epicenter of the dislocation of incentive mechanisms

At this point, you may be thinking, "Why are journals top predators in the academic world? Are their business structures different from other industries?" The answer is no. Journals reflect the incentive mechanism for dislocation in the academic community.

While traditional publishers or online platforms are often designed to enable authors’ work to be accessed by a wide audience and share income with creators, the structure of academic journals is entirely beneficial to publishers. Journals play a crucial role in communicating researchers’ research findings to readers, but their revenue models are primarily intended to benefit publishers, while the advantages gained by authors and readers are minimal.

Readers who wish to access articles in a specific journal must pay a subscription fee or purchase a single article. However, if researchers wish to publish their work in an open access form, they must pay the journal processing fee and they will not receive any share of the revenue generated. It didn't end there - the researchers not only gave up their income share, but in most cases, copyrights of their work were transferred to the journal when they were published, allowing the journal to monetize the content. This system is highly exploitative and fundamentally unfair to researchers.

The business model of journals is exploitative in their income streams and is cruel in scale. For example, Nature Communications, one of the most well-known fully open access journals in natural sciences, charges authors an overly high article processing fee of $6,790 per article. Researchers must pay this fee to publish a paper in Nature Communications.

Subscription fees for academic journals are also staggering. While annual institutional subscription fees vary by field and type of journal, the average annual subscription fee for journals under the American Chemical Society (ACS) is $4,908 per journal. If an institution subscribes to all ACS journals, the fee will soar to an astronomical $170,000. For Springer Nature journals, the average annual subscription fee is about $10,000 per journal and the cost of subscribing to all journals is about $630,000. Because most research institutions subscribe to a large number of journals, the reader’s subscription fee can be very high.

Left;">Subscription fees paid by institutions to access journal articles are also paid by these grants.

Because researchers use external funds primarily rather than personal funds, they may be more inclined to accept these fees. Academic journals leverage this system by charging authors and readers while retaining copyrights for published works, creating an extremely exploitative income model.

2.2.3 Poor-designed peer review process

Left;">The problems of journals are not limited to their revenue structure, but also the inefficiency and lack of transparency in their publishing processes. In my six years of academic work, I have published four papers and encountered many problems, especially inefficient submission processes and opaque, luck-dependent peer review systems.

The standard peer review process for most journals usually follows the following steps:

Researchers will put theirDiscovered as a manuscript and submitted to their target journal.

Journal editors evaluate whether the manuscript meets its scope and meets general standards. If deemed appropriate, the editor will assign two or three peer reviewers to evaluate the paper.

Peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide feedback through comments and questions. They then made one of the following four suggestions:

Accept: Approve the manuscript without modification.

Slight modification: The manuscript is approved, but minor corrections are required.

Major modification: The manuscript is approved, but major changes are required.

Reject: directly reject the manuscript.

The researchers modify the paper based on the reviewer's feedback, and then the editor makes the final decision.

Although it seems simple and clear, the process is full of inefficiency, inconsistency and a serious reliance on subjective judgments, which can undermine the quality and fairness of the system.

The first problem is that the review process is extremely inefficient. Although I cannot represent other fields, in natural sciences and engineering, the timelines for submitting papers and conducting review process are roughly as follows:

Time for receiving editorial rejection after submission: 1 to 2 months

Time for receiving peer review after submission: 3 to 4 months

Time for receiving final decision after submission: 3 to 1 year

If delays occur due to the circumstances of the journal or reviewer and multiple rounds of peer review are required, it may take more than one year to publish a paper. For example, in my case, the editor sent my paper to three peer reviewers, but one of them did not respond. This requires finding another reviewer, extending the peer review process to four months.

What's worse is that if the paper is rejected after this long process, the entire cycle must be repeated in another journal, double the time required.Such an inefficient and time-consuming publishing process may be detrimental to researchers, as similar studies by other teams may be published during this period. I see this happening often, and since novelty is one of the most important aspects of the paper, it can have serious consequences for researchers.

The second problem is the shortage of peer reviewers. As mentioned earlier, submissions are usually evaluated by two to three peer reviewers. Whether the paper is accepted depends largely on the opinions of these few people. Although reviewers are experts in relevant fields and usually agree on the quality of papers, there is still some contingency.

Let me illustrate with an example from my experience. I once submitted a paper to the famous journal A. Despite receiving two main comments and one minor comment, my paper was rejected. I then submitted the same paper to a slightly less prestigious journal B. However, after receiving a rejection and a major comment, it was rejected again. Interestingly, although Journal B is not as prominent as Journal A, the results are worse.

This highlights a problem: paper evaluation relies on a few experts, and the selection of reviewers is entirely at the discretion of the journal editor. This means that there is a certain component of luck in whether the paper is approved. In extreme cases, the same paper may be accepted if reviewed by three tolerant reviewers, but may be rejected if assigned to three strict reviewers.

That is, it is impractical to significantly increase the number of peer reviewers for a more equitable assessment. From a journal perspective, more reviewers mean more communication and inefficiency.

The third problem is the lack of incentives during the peer review process, which leads to low review quality. This varies by peer reviewer. Some reviewers thoroughly understand the paper and provide thoughtful comments and questions. However, others did not read the paper carefully, ask for information already included, or make irrelevant criticisms and comments, resulting in significant modifications or rejection. Unfortunately, this is common and makes researchers feel betrayed as if their efforts were denied.

This stems from the lack of incentives in the peer review process, which makes quality control difficult. When a journal receives a submission, the editor usually asks university professors or researchers in related fields to review the paper. However, even if these people take the time to read, analyze and review papers, their efforts will not be rewarded. From a professor or graduate student perspective, peer review is only a free and tedious task.

The fourth problem is the lack of transparency in the peer review process. Peer reviews are conducted anonymously to ensure fairness and journal editors choose reviewers. However, reviewers can identify the authors of the papers they review. This can lead to biased assessments, such as giving favorable comments to papers by friendly researchers, or deliberately harsh comments on papers by competing teams. This situation is more common than people think.

2.2.4 Illusion of Influencing Factors

The last question I want to discuss about journals is the number of citations. How do we evaluate the career and expertise of researchers? Each researcher has unique advantages: some are good at experimental design, some are good at identifying research topics, and some are able to thoroughly investigate neglected details. However, it is actually impossible to perform a qualitative assessment of each researcher. Therefore, the academic community relies on quantitative indicators, expressed in a single number, to evaluate researchers—especially the number of citations and the H-index.

Researchers with higher H-index scores and citations for published papers are generally considered more accomplished. For reference, the H index is an indicator for evaluating the productivity and influence of researchers. For example, an H index of 10 means that the researcher has at least 10 papers, each cited 10 times or more. Ultimately, the number of citations remains the most important indicator.

What can researchers do to increase their citation count? While publishing high-quality papers is the fundamental solution, choosing the right research topic is equally crucial. The more popular the research field is, the larger the population of researchers, the greater the likelihood that the number of citations will naturally increase.

The above table shows the ranking of journal impact factors released by Clarivate in 2024. Impact factor (IF) represents the average number of citations received annually by a paper in a particular journal. For example, if the impact factor of a journal is 10, researchers who publish papers in that journal can expect their paper to receive about 10 citations per year.

View the rankings, it is obvious that journals with high impact factors are often concentrated in certain research areas. For example, cancer, medicine, materials, energy and machine learning. Even in a wider field like chemistry, specific sub-fields such as batteries and environmentally friendly energy tend to be more cited thanTraditional fields such as mechanical chemistry have more advantages. This suggests the potential risk in the academic community that researchers may tend toward specific topics due to their heavy reliance on the number of citations as the primary assessment method.

This highlights that metrics such as citations and impact factors are not universal tools for evaluating the quality of researchers or journals. For example, in the same ACS publisher group, the ACS Energy Express had an impact factor of 19, while the American Chemical Society Journal had an impact factor of 14.4. However, the Journal of the American Chemical Society is considered to be one of the most prestigious and authoritative journals in the field of chemistry. Similarly, Nature is widely regarded as the top journal for researchers to publish papers, but because it publishes papers covering a wide range of topics, its impact factor is 50.5. In contrast, the sister journal Nature Medicine, which focuses on a specific field, had a higher impact factor of 58.7.

2.2.5 Destruction without publication

Success comes from failure. Progress in any field requires failure as a stepping stone. Research results published in academia today are usually the result of countless hours and failed attempts. However, in the modern scientific community, almost all papers report only successful results, and many of the failures that lead to these successes are unpublished and discarded. In the competitive academic community, researchers have little motivation to report failed experiments because they have no benefit to their careers and are often considered a waste of time recording.

2.3 Systematic Challenge 3: Collaboration

In computer software, open source projects revolutionize development by exposing code and encouraging global contributions, enabling developers to collaborate on creating better software. However, the trajectory of the scientific community is moving in the opposite direction.

In early scientific ages, such as in the 17th century, scientists prioritized sharing of knowledge under natural philosophy and showed an open and collaborative attitude to keep a distance from rigid authority. For example, despite the competition, Isaac Newton and Robert Hook exchanged letters to share and criticize each other’s work and jointly advance knowledge.

Modern science, by contrast, becomes more isolated. Researchers are driven by competition to obtain funding and publish articles in journals with higher impact factors. Unpublished studies are usually kept confidential and strongly opposed to external sharing. Therefore, research laboratories in the same field naturally view each other as competitors, with little way to understandWork on each other.

Because most studies are carried out step by step based on previous publications, it is very likely that competitive laboratories will conduct very similar studies. In the absence of a shared research process, multiple laboratories conduct parallel research on the same topic at the same time. This creates an inefficient and winner-takes-all environment where the lab that publishes the results first receives all honors. It is not uncommon for researchers to find a similar study published when they are about to finish their work, thus putting most of their efforts to waste.

In the worst case, even in the same lab, students may conceal experimental materials or research results from each other, competing internally instead of collaborating. As open source culture becomes the cornerstone of computer science, the modern scientific community must adopt a more open and collaborative culture to serve the broader public interest.

3. How to repair traditional science? 3.1 Many people have tried and learned about these issues in the scientific community. While they recognize these problems, these challenges are deeply rooted structural problems that individuals cannot easily solve. However, over the years, countless attempts have been made to solve these problems.

3.1.1 Repair Centralized Funding

Fast Grants: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison discovered the inefficiency of the traditional funding process and launched a rapid funding program that raised $50 million to support hundreds of projects. The funding decision was made within 14 days, with funding ranging from $10,000 to $500,000, which is a considerable amount for the researchers.

Renaissance Philanthropy: Founded by Tom Kalil, a former science and technology consultant during the presidency of Clinton and Obama, the nonprofit consulting organization connects donors to high-impact science and technology initiatives. With the support of Eric and Wendy Schmidt, it resembles the sponsorship system that once popular among European scientists.

hhmi: Howard Hughes Medical Institute adopts a unique funding model, supporting individual researchers rather than specific projects. By providing long-term funding, it relieves the pressure on short-term outcomes and allows researchers to focus on ongoing research.

experiment.com: This online crowdfunding platform enables researchers to introduce their work to the public and raise the necessary funds from individual donors.

3.1.2 Repairing academic journals

PLOS ONE: PLOS ONE is an open-access scientific journal that anyone can read, download and share articles for free. It evaluates papers based on scientific validity rather than influence and is known for publishing negative, invalid or uncertain results. Its streamlined publishing process helps researchers quickly disseminate research results. However, PLOS ONE charges researchers a paper processing fee of $1,000 to $5,000.

arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, PsyArXiv, SocArXiv: These are preprint servers that allow researchers to share their draft papers before the journal is officially published. They can quickly disseminate research findings, declare priorities on specific topics, and provide community feedback and collaboration opportunities while providing readers with free access to papers.

Sci-hub: Founded by Kazakh computer programmer Alexandra Asanovna Elbakyan, Sci-hub provides free access to paywall papers. Although illegal in most jurisdictions and litigated by publishers such as Elsevier, it has been praised for promoting free access to academic content, and has also been criticized for violating the law.

3.1.3 Fix Collaboration

ResearchGate: A professional social platform for researchers to share papers, ask questions and answer questions, and find collaborators.

CERN: CERN is a non-profit organization that conducts particle physics research, conducting large-scale experiments that are difficult to conduct in individual laboratories. It brings together multiple researchers and contributes funds based on the GDP of participating countries.

3.2 DeSci, New Wave

While the above efforts have made some progress in addressing the challenges of modern science, they have not had the transformative impact needed to completely change the field. Recently, with the rise of blockchain technology, a new concept called Decentralized Science (DeSci) has attracted attention as a potential solution to these structural problems. But what exactly is DeSci? Can it really revolutionize the modern scientific ecosystem?

4. Enter DeSci4.1 DeSci Overview

DeSci, that is, decentralized science, refers to the efforts to make scientific knowledge a public product by improving the scientific community's funding, research, peer review and sharing of research results. It is committed to building a system that is more efficient, fair, transparent and accessible for all. Blockchain technology plays a central role in achieving these goals by leveraging the following features:

Transparency: In addition to the privacy network, blockchain networks are inherently transparent, allowing anyone to view transactions. This feature can enhance transparency in project funding and peer review processes.

Ownership: Blockchain assets are protected by private keys, and ownership can be easily declared. This feature enables researchers to monetize their data or claim intellectual property (IP) rights to fund research.

Incentive mechanism: Incentives are the core of blockchain networks. To encourage collaboration and active participation, token incentives can be used to reward participants in various research processes.

Smart Contract: A smart contract deployed on a neutral network performs as defined in its code. They can be used to transparently establish and automate the interactive logic between participants.

4.2 Potential Application of DeSci

As the name suggests, DeSci can be applied to all aspects of scientific research. ResearchHub divides the potential applications of DeSci into the following five areas:

Research DAO: These are decentralized autonomous organizations focusing on specific research topics. They use blockchain technology to transparently manage research planning, funding, governance voting and project management.

Publishing: Blockchain can decentralize and completely change the publishing process. Research papers, data and code can be permanently recorded on the blockchain to ensure credibility, allow free access for everyone, and incentivize peer reviewers with tokens.

Funding and Intellectual Property: Researchers can easily obtain funds from global audiences through a blockchain network. In addition, through tokenization research projects, token holders can participate in decision-making regarding project directions or share future intellectual property revenue.

Data: Blockchain supports secure and transparent storage, management and research data sharing.

Infrastructure: This includes governance tools, storage solutions, community platforms, and identity systems that can be easily integrated into DeSci projects.

The best way to understand DeSci is to explore its ecosystem projects and study how they solve structural problems in modern science. Let's take a closer look at some of the important projects in the DeSci ecosystem.

5. DeSci Ecosystem

5.1 Why the Ethereum ecosystem is ideal for DeSci

Unlike applications in DeFi, games or AI, the DeSci projects are mainly concentrated in the Ethereum ecosystem. This trend can be attributed to the following reasons:

Trust-neutrality: Ethereum is the most neutral network in the smart contract platform. Given the nature of DeSci, which involves large flows of capital (e.g., research funding), values ​​such as decentralization, equity, censorship resistance and credibility are crucial. This makes Ethereum the best network to build DeSci projects.

Network effect: Ethereum has the largest user base and liquidity in a smart contract network. DeSci is a relatively niche area compared to other applications, and there is a risk of fragmentation if the project is spread across multiple networks. This fragmentation may hinder project management due to liquidity and ecosystem-related challenges. Most DeSci projects are built on their networks to take advantage of the powerful network effects of Ethereum.

DeSci Infrastructure: Few DeSci projects are built entirely from scratch. Instead, many projects use existing frameworks such as Molecule to accelerate development. Since most DeSci infrastructure tools are based on Ethereum, most projects in this field also run on Ethereum.

For these reasons, the DeSci project introduced in this discussion mainly belongs to the Ethereum ecosystem. Now, let's explore representative projects in various fields of DeSci.

5.2 Funding and Intellectual Property

Molecule

Molecule is a platform for funding and tokenizing biopharmaceutical intellectual property. Researchers can obtain funds from a number of individuals through blockchain to tokenize the intellectual property of projects, and funders can obtain intellectual property tokens based on their contributions.

Molecule Catalyst, a decentralized fundraising platform, connects researchers and funders. Researchers prepare the necessary documents and project plans to propose their projects on the platform. Funders review these proposals and provide ETH for projects they support. Once the funding is completed, IP-NFT and IP tokens are issued, which can then be claimed by funders.

IP NFT Representing a tokenized version of the intellectual property rights of the on-chain project, the two legal agreements are merged into a smart contract. The first legal agreement is a research agreement, signed by researchers and funders. It includes terms regarding the scope of the research, deliverables, timelines, budgets, confidentiality, intellectual property and data ownership, publication, results disclosure, licensing and patent conditions. The second legal agreement is a transfer agreement, which transfers the research agreement to the IP NFT owner, ensuring that the rights held by the current IP NFT owner can be transferred to the new owner.

IP tokens represent part of the governance rights of the intellectual property rights. Token holders can participate in key research decisions and access exclusive information. While IP tokens do not guarantee revenue sharing for the research, future commercialization profits may be distributed to IP depending on the intellectual property owner. Token holders.

The price of IP tokens is determined by Catalyst Bonding Curve, which reflects the relationship between the token supply and price. As more tokens are issued, their prices will rise. This allows early funders to have lower costsObtain tokens to incentivize early contributions.

The following are some cases of successful financing through Molecule:

Fang Laboratory at the University of Oslo: Fang Laboratory studies aging and Alzheimer's disease. The laboratory has gained support from VitaDAO through Molecule’s IP-NFT framework to identify and characterize new drug candidates for mitophagy activation, which has a positive impact on Alzheimer’s disease research.

Artan Bio: Artan Bio focuses on tRNA-related research. It received $91,300 in the VitaDAO community through Molecule’s IP-NFT framework.

5.22Bio.xyz

Bio.xyz is a DeSci curation and liquidity protocol similar to an incubator that supports BioDAO. Bio.xyz’s goal is:

Current, create and accelerate new BioDAOs to fund science on-chain.

provides permanent funding and liquidity for BioDAO and on-chain biotech assets.

Standardized BioDAO framework, token economics and data/product suite.

Generate and commercialize scientific intellectual property and data.

BIO token holders vote to decide which new BioDAOs will join the ecosystem. Once BioDAO is approved to join the BIO ecosystem, token holders who vote for it can participate in the initial private token auction. This process is similar to a whitelist pre-seed round.

Approved BioDAO's governance tokens are paired with BIO tokens and added to the liquidity pool, eliminating BioDAO's need to worry about its governance token liquidity (e.g., VITA/BIO). Additionally, Bio.xyz runs bio/acc Rewards Program, providing BIO token incentives when BioDAO achieves key milestones.

Not only that. BIO tokens also act as metagovernance tokens for multiple BioDAOs in the ecosystem. This enables BIO holders to participate in the governance of various BioDAOs. In addition, the BIO network also provides a $100,000 grant to incubated BioDAO and acquires 6.9% of the token supply for the vault. This adds the AUM of the protocol (managed assets) and accumulates value for BIO tokens.

Bio.xyz uses Molecule's IP NFT and IP token framework to manage and own intellectual property rights. For example, VitaDAO has successfully issued IP tokens such as VitaRNA and VITA-FAST in the Bio ecosystem. Here is a list of research DAOs currently incubated through Bio.xyz, which we will discuss in detail in the next section:

Cerebrum DAO: Focus on preventing the occurrence of neurodegenerative diseases.

PsyDAO: Dedicated to the evolution of consciousness through a safe, accessible psychedelic experience.

cryoDAO: Contributes to low-temperature preservation research projects.

AthenaDAO: Committed to advancing women's health research.

ValleyDAO: Supports synthetic biology research.

HairDAO: Cooperate to develop new methods for treating hair loss.

VitaDAO: Focus on human lifespan.

In short, Bio.xyz curates BioDAO and provides token frameworks, liquidity services, grants and incubation support. When the intellectual property of BioDAO in the ecosystem is successfully commercialized, the value of the Bio.xyz vault increases, thus forming a virtuous cycle.

5.3 Research DAO

5.3.1 VitaDAO

When it comes to the most famous research DAO, VitaDAO often comes to mind first. Its reputation stems from being an early DeSci project and was led by Pfizer Ventures in 2023. VitaDAO funded projects focusing on lifespan and aging research, which has provided more than $4.2 million in funding to more than 24 projects. In return, VitaDAO acquires IP NFTs or equity in the company and uses the Molecule.xyz framework to handle IP NFTs.

VitaDAO takes advantage of the transparency of blockchain by exposing its vault. The value of the vault is approximately $44 million, which includes approximately $2.3 million in equity and $29 million in tokenized IP and other assets. VITA token holders participate in governance votes to shape the direction of DAOs and access various health care services.

VitaDAO's most famous projects are VitaRNA and VITA-FAST. Both projects have been tokenized and actively traded, with VITARNA having a market capitalization of approximately $13 million and VITA-FAST having a market capitalization of approximately $24 million. Both projects have regular calls with VitaDAO to update their progress.

VitaRNA: VitaRNA is an IP token project led by biotechnology company Artan Bio. The project was successfully funded in June 2023 and issued IP NFT in January 2024, breaking it into IP tokens. Their innovative research focuses on inhibiting nonsense mutations of arginine, especially the CGA codon, which is crucial in proteins associated with DNA damage, neurodegenerative diseases, and tumor suppression.

VITA-FAST: VITA-FAST is an IP token project in the Viktor Korolchuk Laboratory at Newcastle University. The project focuses on the discovery of novel autophagy activators. Autophagy is a cellular process whose decay leads to biological aging, and stimulating autophagy is to explore treatments against aging and related diseases, ultimately aiming to extend the healthy lifespan of humans.

5.3.2 HairDAO

HairDAO is an open source R&D network where patients and researchers collaborate on developing methods for treating hair loss. According to Scandinavian Biolabs, hair loss affects 85% of men and 50% of women in their lifetime. However, there are only treatments such as minoxidil, finasteride and dutasteride on the market. It is worth noting that Minoxidil was approved by the FDA in 1988 and Finasteride in 1997.

Even these approved treatments can only provide limited effects, such as slowing down or temporarily preventing hair loss, rather than providing a cure. The development of hair loss treatments is very slow for several reasons:

Complex causes: Hair loss is caused by a variety of factors, including genetics, hormonal changes and immune responses, so it is challenging to develop effective targeted treatments.

High development costs: Drug development requires a lot of time and investment, but because hair loss is not life-threatening, it is usually ranked lower in research funding priorities.

HairDAO rewards patients with HAIR governance tokens through the app to share their treatment experience and data. HAIR token holders can participate in DAO governance votes, enjoy discounts on HairDAO shampoo products, and stake tokens for faster access to confidential research data.

5.3.3 Other

CryoDAO: CryoDAO focuses on low-temperature preservation research, with a vault of over $7 million and funding five projects. CRYO token holders can participate in governance votes and may receive breakthroughs in funding research and early or exclusive access to data.

ValleyDAO: ValleyDAO aims to address climate challenges by funding research in synthetic biology. Synthetic biology aims to utilize biological organisms to sustainably synthesize nutrients, fuels and drugs, a key technology in addressing climate change. ValleyDAO has funded several projects, including research by Professor Rodrigo Ledesma-Amaro, Imperial College London.

CerebrumDAO: CerebrumDAO focuses on brain health research, especially Alzheimer'sPrevention of diseases. Its Snapshot page shows numerous proposals from projects seeking funding. Decisions are decentralized and are conducted through DAO member voting.

5.4 Publishing

5.4.1 ResearchHub

ResearchHub is the leading DeSci publishing platform designed to be "GitHub of science." Founded by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Patrick Joyce, ResearchHub successfully completed a $5 million Series A funding round in June 2023, led by Open Source Software Capital.

ResearchHub is a tool for open publishing and discussing scientific research, incentivizing researchers to publish, peer review and curate through its native RSC tokens. Its main functions include:

Grant

Peer review: requests review of the manuscript.

Question answers: Request answers to specific questions.

Using RSC tokens, users can create grants to request other ResearchHub users to perform specific tasks. Grant types include:

Fund

In the Funds tab, researchers can upload research proposals and obtain user funds in the form of RSC tokens.

Journal

The Journal section archives papers from peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers. Users can browse the literature and participate in discussions.However, many peer reviewed papers have paid walls that allow users to access summaries written by others.

Hubs

"Hubs" archives preprint papers by field. This section contains all open access papers that allow anyone to read the full content and participate in the discussion.

Lab Notebook

"Lab Notebook" is a collaborative online workspace where multiple users can write papers together. Similar to Google Docs or Notion, this feature allows seamless release directly on ResearchHub.

RH Journal

RH Journal is an internal journal of ResearchHub. It has an efficient peer review process, completed within 14 days and made decisions within 21 days. In addition, it has incorporated incentive systems for peer reviewers, solving the common incentive misalignment problems in traditional peer review systems.

RSC Token

RSC Token is an ERC-20 token used in the ResearchHub ecosystem with a total supply of 1 billion. RSC tokens drive engagement and support ResearchHub’s vision to become a fully decentralized open platform. Their utilities include:

Governance Voting

Tip to other users

Bounty Program

People Reviewers

Rewards for Curated Research Papers

5.4.2 ScieNFT

ScieNFT is a decentralized preprint server where researchers can publish their work as NFTs. Publications can be formatted from simple graphics and ideas to datasets, artworks, methods, and even negative results. Preprint data is stored using decentralized storage solutions such as IPFS and Filecoin, while NFTs are uploaded to Avalanche C-Chain.

While using NFTs to identify and track ownership of works is an advantage, an obvious disadvantage is that the benefits of buying these NFTs are unclear. In addition, the market lacks effective curation.

5.4.3 deScier

deScier is a decentralized scientific journal platform. Similar to publishers such as Elsevier or Springer Nature that manage multiple journals under its umbrella, deScier also hosts various journals. All papers are 100% copyrighted by researchers, and peer review is part of the process. However, as described below, a significant limitation is that the number of papers published in journals is small and the upload speed is slow.

5.5 Data

5.5.1 Data Lake

Data Lake The software enables researchers to integrate various user recruitment channels, track their effectiveness, manage consent forms, and conduct preselected surveys while giving users control over their data. Researchers can share and easily manage patient data between third parties using consent forms. Data Lake uses Data Lake Chain, a L3 network based on Arbitrum Orbit.

5.5.2 Welshare Health

In traditional medical research, the biggest bottleneck is the delay in recruiting participants in clinical trials and the lack of patients. In addition, while patient medical data is valuable, it also poses a risk of being abused. Welshare aims to leverage Web3 technology to address these challenges.

Patients can safely manage their data, monetize it to earn income,and get personalized medical services. Instead, medical researchers can also have easier access to various datasets, thereby facilitating their research.

With the underlying network-based application, users can selectively provide data to earn in-app reward points, which can later be converted into cryptocurrencies or fiat currencies.

5.5.3 Hippocrat

Hippocrat is a decentralized health care data protocol that allows individuals to safely manage their health data using blockchain and Zero Knowledge Proof-of-Proof-of-Law (ZKP) technology. Its first product, HippoDoc, is a telemedicine application that provides healthcare consultation using medical databases, artificial intelligence technologies and the assistance of healthcare professionals. Throughout the process, patient data is securely stored on the blockchain.

5.6 DeSci Infrastructure

5.6.1 Ceramic

Ceramic

Ceramic is a decentralized event flow protocol that allows developers to create decentralized databases, distributed computing pipelines, authenticated data feeds, and more. These features make it ideal for DeSci projects, allowing them to use Ceramic as a decentralized database:

The data on the Ceramic network is accessible without permission, allowing researchers to share and collaborate on data.

Ceramic The operations such as research papers, citations and comments on the Ceramic network are expressed as "Ceramic streams". A single stream can only be modified by its original author account, ensuring the source of intellectual property.

Ceramic also provides infrastructure for verifiable statements, enabling DeSci projects to adopt their reputation infrastructure.

5.6.2 bloXberg

bloXberg is a blockchain infrastructure established under the leadership of the Max Planck Digital Library in Germany, and well-known research institutions such as the ETH Zurich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and the University of Information Technology in Copenhagen are also involved.

bloXberg aims to innovate various processes in scientific research, such as research data management, peer review and intellectual property protection. Use blockchain to decentralize these processes, thereby improving the transparency and efficiency of research. Researchers can use blockchain to securely share and collaborate in processing research data.

6. Is DeSci really a panacea?

We have explored structural problems in modern science and how DeSci is designed to solve them. But please wait. Can DeSci really revolutionize the scientific community and play a central role as the crypto community claims? I don't think so. However, I think there is a possibility that DeSci can play a supporting role in some areas.

6.1 What can blockchain solve and what cannot be solved? Blockchain is not magic. It doesn't solve all problems. We must be clear about what regionally divide blockchain can solve and what cannot solve.

6.1.1 Funding

DeSci is expected to perform well in funding scenarios that meet the following conditions: Small-scale grants

Study with commercial potential

Scale funding in the scientific community varies greatly, ranging from tens of thousands to millions or even tens of millions of dollars. Centralized funding from large projects that require large amounts of funds or enterprises is inevitable. However, smaller projects can tangibly get funding through the DeSci platform.

From the perspective of small-scale project researchers, the burden of a large amount of paperwork and a lengthy funding review process can be overwhelming. In this case, a DeSci funding platform that provides fast and efficient funding is very attractive.

That is, in order to increase the likelihood of research projects receiving public funding through the DeSci platform, there must be reasonable commercial prospects, such as through patents or technology transfers. This provides an incentive for the public to invest in the project. However, most modern scientific research is not oriented towards commercialization, but is supported to enhance or firm's technological competitiveness.

Anyway, it is suitable for obtaining funds on the DeSci platformAreas of assistance include biotechnology, healthcare and pharmaceuticals. Most DeSci projects are currently focused on these areas, which is consistent with this reasoning. If the research is successful, these areas are likely to be commercialized. Furthermore, while the final commercialization requires a lot of capital, the initial stage of the research usually requires less capital than other areas, making the DeSci platform a favorable option for raising funds.

I question whether DeSci can achieve long-term research. While a few researchers may be supported by altruistic and voluntary funders to engage in long-term research, this culture is unlikely to be widely spread throughout the scientific community. Even if the DeSci platforms utilize blockchain, there is no inherent causality that suggests they can sustain long-term funding. If someone deliberately seeks a link between blockchain and long-term research, one possible consideration is milestone-based funding through smart contracts.

6.1.2 Journal

Ideally, the area where DeSci can bring the greatest innovation is academic journals. Through smart contracts and token incentives, DeSci has the potential to reorganize journal-led profit models into researchers-centric models. However, in reality, this will be challenging.

The most critical factor for researchers to build a career is publishing papers. In academia, researchers’ ability is judged primarily by the journals they publish, their citations, and their h-index. Human nature is essentially dependent on authority—a fact that it has not changed from prehistoric times to today. An unknown researcher, for example, could become famous overnight by publishing articles in top journals such as Nature, Science, or Cell.

While qualitative assessment of researchers' skills is ideal, such assessments rely heavily on peer references, so quantitative assessments are almost inevitable. It is precisely because of this that journals have huge power. Despite monopolizing the profit model, researchers have no choice but to follow. In order for DeSci journals to gain greater influence, they must establish authority, but it is very challenging to achieve the reputation accumulated by traditional journals over a century through token incentives alone.

While DeSci may not completely change the journal landscape, it can undoubtedly contribute to specific areas such as peer review and negative results.

As mentioned earlier, peer reviewers currently have little or noThere is no incentive to be obtained, which reduces the quality and efficiency of peer reviews. Providing token incentives to reviewers can improve the quality of reviews and improve the standards of journals.

In addition, token incentives can lead to a network of journals dedicated to publishing negative results. Since reputation is less important to journals that specialize in publishing negative results, the combination of token rewards will inspire researchers to publish their findings in such journals.

6.1.3 Collaboration

In my opinion, blockchain is unlikely to significantly solve the fierce competition in modern science. Unlike in the past, today’s researchers are much larger, and each achievement directly affects career development, making competition inevitable. It is unrealistic to expect blockchain to solve the overall collaborative challenges of the scientific community.

On the other hand, blockchain can effectively foster collaboration in small groups such as DAO. Researchers in DAO coordinate incentives through tokens, share common visions, and record achievements on the blockchain through timestamps for recognition. I would like to see an increase in the number and activity of research DAOs, not only in the field of biotechnology, but also in other disciplines.

7. Final Thoughts: DeSci needs a Bitcoin moment

The modern scientific community faces many structural challenges, and DeSci provides a compelling narrative to address these challenges. While DeSci may not revolutionize the entire science ecosystem, it can be expanded step by step through researchers and users who discover their value. Ultimately, we may see a balance between TradSci and DeSci. Just as Bitcoin was once regarded as a toy for computer geeks, and now major traditional financial institutions are entering the market, I hope DeSci can also gain long-term recognition and achieve its "bitcoin moment".