Meme coins do not require positive externalities; their first principle is the cyber lottery of the 2020s in the 21st century.

Written by: NingNing

Does DeSci need meme coins? Do meme coins need DeSci? Can DeSci truly become a disruptive innovation like DeFi?

During this time, I have been lurking in the unconscious abyss of on-chain PVP, observing 👀 the narrative of DeSci as it unfolds in the phenomenon realm:

From the imitation of http://Pump.fun launching longevity drugs $RIF $URO meme coins for on-chain PK, to @0xAA_Science igniting the attention war around Scihub-related memecoins, to OG DeSci projects like Bio Protocol, Vita DAO, and ResearchHub blossoming anew, and finally, just when the market thought the DeSci narrative was becoming a thing of the past, Andrew Kang called out with a new narrative: 2024 DeSci = 2019 DeFi.

"Open sourcing scientific papers," "redefining the paradigm of scientific research," and other fantastic new narratives have visibly excited some individuals straddling the research and crypto circles. To those of us who have been immersed in leftist ideology for years without realizing it, meme coins with positive externalities seem to embody a strong sense of justice.

But the question is, do meme coins really need positive externalities like DeSci? I tend to agree with Toly and crypto Vaidya's viewpoint that meme coins do not need positive externalities; their first principle is the cyber lottery of the 2020s, selling extreme volatility to young people dreaming of overnight wealth, giving the P generation born in the Z era a chance to participate in wealth distribution.

Endowing a lottery ticket with lofty value and meaning is the approach of China's sports lottery and welfare lottery. Doing so ultimately attracts many clueless individuals to pay an IQ tax, merely fattening the pockets of the house (the dealer) without any real positive externality.

However, another fact is that meme coin trading is a typical attention-tokenized market, thus obeying the laws of communication. A good narrative (whether it’s a positive externality narrative or Cult culture) is a good social media viral meme. From this perspective, DeSci is not bad; it is a kind of honor market collusion.

So, does DeSci need meme coins? To be precise, does DeSci need the wealth effect and market attention brought by meme coins? The answer is affirmative.

As a niche track, although there are endorsements and investments from institutions like Coinbase, Binance, and Pfizer, as well as figures like Brian Armstrong, CZ, and Vitalik, DeSci projects have always been viewed by the market as social currencies for the elite (a need for pretentiousness), and are not favored or allocated by mainstream market funds (who still remembers Celo's ReFi narrative in the last cycle?).

Finally, can DeSci truly become a disruptive innovation like DeFi? There is a glimmer of hope. Here, I would like to quote Popper's philosophy of science: science is not only about truth but also about power, and it is a kind of religious power of the scientific community, particularly emphasizing the lineage and academic tradition.

Whether it’s research DAOs, Pump Science, or the pirate-style plundering mentioned in Toly's tweets, they are all attempting to challenge and innovate the existing power structures of the scientific community through new organizational methods, new fundraising and donation paradigms, and new collaboration methods.

Though it may be a small spark, it can provide warmth and hope on a cold winter night.

But to be honest, DeSci does not possess the high financial attributes of DeFi; it lacks the two powerful tools of composability (stacking Legos) and cyclical leverage. It is difficult for DeSci to create new assets at the scale of 100 billion like DeFi did back in the day by stepping on one foot and then the other.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。