DeSci may not be able to overturn the traditional academic system, but it is expected to play a complementary role in areas such as research funding, journal publishing, and data sharing.
Author: @100y_eth
Translation: Blockchain in Plain Language
The academic system is riddled with issues, but DeSci is not a panacea.
Special thanks to @tarunchitra (Gauntlet), @NateHindman (Bio), and Benji @benjileibo (Molecule) for their feedback and review of this article.
I recently obtained a degree in chemical engineering and published four papers as the first author during my studies, including articles in top academic journals such as Nature and the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). Although my academic experience is limited to graduate studies and I have actively served as an independent researcher, which may lead to some discoveries, I have gained a deep understanding of the structural issues within the academic system over nearly six years of academic career.
Against this backdrop, DeSci (Decentralized Science) aims to leverage blockchain technology to challenge the centralized flaws of the traditional academic system, which is undoubtedly an attractive concept. Recently, DeSci has sparked a wave in the crypto market, with people believing it has the potential to completely disrupt the existing landscape of scientific research.
I also look forward to such a transformation. However, I believe the likelihood of DeSci completely replacing the traditional academic system is low. From a realistic perspective, DeSci is more likely to serve as a supplementary force to help address some core issues within the academic system.
Therefore, at the core of DeSci's heavy bass, I hope to have the opportunity to combine my academic experience to explore some structural issues present in the traditional academic system, assess whether blockchain technology truly offers effective solutions, and further discuss the potential practical impacts of DeSci on the academic community.
1. The Sudden Surge of DeSci
1) DeSci: From Niche Concept to Thriving Movement
The structural problems that have long existed in academia are well-known, as discussed in VOX articles "The Seven Major Challenges in Science According to 270 Scientists" and "The War to Liberate Science". Over the years, various attempts have been made to address these challenges, some of which we will discuss in detail later.
The concept of DeSci (Decentralized Science) attempts to use blockchain technology to solve these problems, but this idea only began to gain attention around 2020. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong introduced the concept of DeSci to the crypto community through ResearchHub, attempting to realign the incentive mechanisms of scientific research with ResearchCoin (RSC).
However, due to the speculative nature of the crypto market, DeSci long failed to gain widespread attention, with only a few small communities promoting its development, until the emergence of pump.science.
2) The Butterfly Effect Triggered by pump.science
_Source: _pump.science
pump.science is a DeSci project within the Solana ecosystem, developed by the well-known DeSci platform Molecule. The project serves as both a fundraising platform and utilizes Wormbot technology for real-time streaming of long-term experiments. Users can propose compounds they believe may extend lifespan or purchase tokens related to these ideas.
When the market capitalization of a token exceeds a set threshold, the project team will use Wormbot devices to conduct experiments to verify whether the compound truly has the effect of extending the lifespan of the experimental subjects. If the experiment is successful, token holders will gain relevant rights to the compound.
However, some community members have criticized this model, arguing that these experiments lack sufficient scientific rigor and are unlikely to genuinely advance the development of anti-aging drugs. Gwart expressed a skeptical attitude with sarcastic remarks, representing a cautious or even questioning stance towards DeSci, challenging the arguments promoted by its supporters.
pump.science employs a Bonding Curve mechanism, similar to Molecule's model, where token prices continuously rise with the increase in buying users.
**The tokens launched by the project, such as *RIF* (corresponding to Rifampicin) and URO (corresponding to Urolithin A), coincidentally rode the wave of the meme token frenzy in the crypto market, leading to skyrocketing prices.** This unexpected surge brought DeSci into the public eye. Ironically, what truly made DeSci popular was not its scientific vision, but the price surge driven by token speculation, which sparked widespread attention towards DeSci.
_Source: _@KaitoAI
In the rapidly changing crypto market, DeSci has long been a niche field. However, in November 2024, it suddenly became one of the hottest narratives. Not only did the prices of tokens related to pump.science soar, but BN also announced investments in the DeSci funding protocol Bio, while other established DeSci tokens also experienced significant increases, marking a critical moment for DeSci.
2. Deficiencies of Traditional Science
It is no exaggeration to say that there are numerous systemic and serious problems within academia. Throughout my academic career, I often ponder: how does such a flawed system continue to operate? Before exploring the potential of DeSci, let us first examine the drawbacks of the traditional academic system.
1) Systemic Challenge One: Research Funding
A. Evolution of Research Funding
Before the 19th century, the ways scientists obtained research funding were vastly different from today, primarily relying on two models:
Patronage: Monarchs and nobles in Europe often funded scientists to enhance their prestige and promote scientific progress. For example, Galileo was funded by the Medici family, allowing him to continue his work on telescopes and astronomy. Religious institutions also played a role in scientific development, as during the Middle Ages, the church and clergy funded research in fields such as astronomy, mathematics, and medicine.
Self-funding: Many scientists relied on personal income to support their research, often being university professors, teachers, writers, or engineers, earning funds through these professions to sustain their scientific exploration.
By the late 19th to early 20th century, a centralized research funding system led by governments and businesses began to take shape. Especially during World War I and World War II, governments around the world established research institutions and invested heavily in defense research to secure victory in the wars.In the United States, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and the National Research Council (NRC) were established during World War I. In Germany, the predecessor of the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Emergency Association of German Science (Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft), was founded in 1920. Meanwhile, the rise of corporate laboratories such as Bell Labs and GE Research also marked the active participation of businesses in research funding, jointly promoting R&D development with the government.
This government and business-driven research funding model gradually became mainstream and continues to this day. Governments and businesses invest huge budgets each year to support researchers worldwide. For instance, in 2023, the U.S. federal government's R&D spending reached $190 billion, a 13% increase from 2022, highlighting the government's core role in promoting research development.
Source: ResearchHubIn the United States, the distribution process of research funding involves the federal government allocating a portion of its budget for R&D (Research and Development), which is then redistributed to various institutions. Major research funding agencies include:
National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the world's largest biomedical research funding agency;
Department of Defense (DoD)—focused on defense-related research;
National Science Foundation (NSF)—funding research across various disciplines in science and engineering;
Department of Energy (DOE)—responsible for research in renewable energy and nuclear physics;
NASA—supporting aerospace and aviation research.
B. How Centralized Research Funding Distorts Science
Today, it is almost impossible for university professors to conduct research completely independently; they must rely on external funding support from the government or corporations. This highly centralized research funding system is one of the root causes of many issues in contemporary academia.
First, the application process for research funding is extremely inefficient. Although the specific operations vary across different countries and institutions, the general consensus in the global academic community is that the process is lengthy, lacks transparency, and is inefficient.
If research laboratories want to obtain funding, they must go through a lot of tedious document preparation, repeated applications, and strict reviews, often requiring multiple layers of approval from the government or corporations. Well-known, resource-rich top laboratories may receive millions or even tens of millions of dollars in grants at once, thus avoiding frequent funding applications. However, this situation is not common.
For most laboratories, a single funding amount is usually only tens of thousands of dollars, forcing researchers to repeatedly apply, write extensive documentation, and undergo continuous reviews.
Conversations with graduate student friends indicate that many scholars and students cannot fully devote themselves to research; instead, they are occupied by funding applications and corporate projects, which take up a significant amount of their time. Even more frustrating is that these corporate collaboration projects often have little relevance to the students' graduation research, further exposing the inefficiencies and flaws of the current research funding system.
Source: NSF
Spending a lot of time applying for research funding may eventually pay off, but unfortunately, obtaining funding is not easy.
According to data from the NSF (National Science Foundation), the funding approval rates for 2023 and 2024 were 29% and 26%, respectively, while the annual median grant amount for a single project was only $150,000, which is relatively limited. The success rate for NIH (National Institutes of Health) funding typically ranges from 15% to 30%. Since a single grant often fails to meet the needs of many researchers, they are forced to repeatedly apply for multiple projects to sustain their research operations.
However, the challenges do not stop there. Networking plays a crucial role in securing research funding. To increase the chances of funding success, professors often prefer to collaborate with peers rather than apply individually. Additionally, it is not uncommon for professors to engage in informal lobbying with funders to secure corporate funding. This reliance on personal connections, along with the lack of transparency in funding allocation, makes it difficult for many early-career researchers to enter the academic system.
C. Another Major Issue of Centralized Research Funding: Lack of Incentives for Long-Term Research
Long-term research funding of over five years is extremely rare. According to NSF data, most research funding has a grant cycle of only 1 to 5 years, and other government agencies have similar funding models. Corporate R&D projects typically provide 1 to 3 years of research funding, with the specific duration depending on the corporation and the project itself.
Government funding is easily influenced by political factors. For example, during the Trump administration, defense R&D funding saw a significant increase; whereas during Democratic leadership, environmental research often became a key funding focus. Due to the shifting policy priorities based on political agendas, long-term research projects have become very rare.
Corporate funding also faces similar limitations. In 2022, the median tenure of CEOs of S&P 500 companies was 4.8 years, with other executives having similar tenures. As companies need to quickly adapt to industry and technological changes, and since these executives often dominate funding allocation, corporate-funded research projects rarely last long.
D. The Trend Towards Short-Termism Leads to a Decline in Research Quality
The centralized research funding system encourages researchers to choose projects that can quickly yield quantifiable results. To ensure a continuous flow of funding, researchers are forced to produce results within five years, making them more inclined to select topics that can be completed in the short term. This trend has led to the formation of a short-term cycle in academia, with only a few teams or institutions willing to invest in long-term research exceeding five years.
Moreover, the centralized funding system also leads researchers to focus more on the quantity of publications rather than the quality of research, as short-term research outcomes are often directly tied to funding evaluations. Research work can generally be divided into incremental research (making slight improvements to existing knowledge) and breakthrough research (opening up entirely new fields). However, the current funding model inherently favors the former, with most papers published outside of top journals often being merely minor additions to existing research rather than groundbreaking innovations.
While the high degree of specialization in modern science already makes breakthrough research more challenging, the centralized funding system exacerbates this issue by further stifling innovative research. This systemic preference for incremental research undoubtedly becomes another obstacle to revolutionary breakthroughs in science.
Source: Nature
Some researchers even manipulate data or exaggerate research conclusions. The current research funding mechanism requires researchers to deliver results in extremely short timeframes, which inadvertently fosters academic misconduct. During my time as a graduate student, I often heard about cases of students in other laboratories falsifying data. Nature has reported that the retraction rates of conference presentations and journal papers have sharply increased in recent years, reflecting the severity of this issue.
E. Do Not Misunderstand: Centralized Research Funding Is Inevitable
It needs to be clarified that centralized research funding is not without its merits. Although this model brings many negative impacts, it remains an indispensable pillar of modern scientific development.
Unlike in the past, today's scientific research is highly complex and sophisticated; even a typical graduate student's project can cost anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention large-scale research projects in defense, aerospace, or fundamental physics, which require exponentially more resources.
Therefore, the centralized funding model is still necessary, but the key lies in how to address the issues it generates.
2) Systemic Challenge Two: Academic Journals
A. The Commercial Operation of Academic Journals
In the cryptocurrency industry, Tether, Circle (stablecoin issuers), BN, and Coinbase (centralized exchanges) are seen as market leaders. Similarly, in academia, academic journals are the most influential centers of power, with representatives including:
- Elsevier
- Springer Nature
- Wiley
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
For example, Elsevier reported revenue of $3.67 billion in 2022, with a net profit of $2.55 billion and a net profit margin of nearly 70%, far exceeding many tech giants. For instance, NVIDIA's net profit margin in 2024 is approximately 55-57%, while academic publishers' profit margins are even higher.
Springer Nature achieved revenue of $1.44 billion in the first nine months of 2024, highlighting the massive scale of the academic publishing industry.
The main sources of income for academic journals include:
- Subscription fees: Accessing papers in journals typically requires a subscription or payment of per-article access fees.
- Article Processing Charges (APC): Many papers are behind a paywall, but authors can choose to pay publication fees to make their papers open access.
- Copyright licensing and reprints: In most cases, once a paper is published, the author must transfer copyright to the journal. Journal publishers profit by selling licenses to educational institutions or commercial companies.
B. Journals: The Core of Misaligned Interests in Academia
At this point, you may ask: “Why can journals dominate the entire academic community? Aren't their business models similar to those of publishers in other industries?”
The answer is negative. The commercial model of academic journals is precisely a typical case of misaligned incentives in academia.
In traditional publishing or online platforms, publishers usually aim to allow creators' works to reach a wider audience and share profits with them. However, the model of academic journals is entirely biased towards the publishers themselves, providing little actual benefit to researchers and readers.
Although journals play an important role in disseminating research findings, their profit model primarily benefits the publishers, while the interests of researchers and readers are severely undermined.
If readers want to read an article in a journal, they must pay a subscription fee or a per-article purchase fee. But if researchers wish to publish their papers as Open Access, they must pay high article processing charges (APC) to the journal, and they do not receive any profit sharing.
Even more unfairly, researchers not only have no right to share the profits after publication, but in most cases, once a paper is published, the copyright is automatically transferred to the journal, meaning that the journal can profit entirely from the content of the paper. This system exploits researchers to a high degree and is fundamentally extremely unfair to them.
The commercial model of academic journals not only has serious exploitation issues, but its scale of profit is astonishing. Taking Nature Communications (one of the most well-known fully open-access journals in the natural sciences) as an example, authors must pay up to $6,790 in article processing fees (APC) for each paper they publish. In other words, researchers must pay out of pocket to publish in Nature Communications, and this fee is considered astronomical.
_Source: _ACS_
The subscription fees for academic journals are equally exorbitant. Although institutional subscription fees vary based on the journal's research field and type, the average annual fee for a single journal under the American Chemical Society (ACS) is as high as $4,908. If an institution subscribes to all journals under ACS, the annual cost can reach $170,000.
Meanwhile, the average annual fee for a single journal under Springer Nature is about $10,000, with the total subscription cost around $630,000. Since most research institutions typically subscribe to multiple journals, this makes access costs for researchers extremely high.
C. The Biggest Problem: Researchers Are Forced to Rely on Journals, While Funding Primarily Comes from Government and Corporations
What is even more concerning is that researchers are almost "kidnapped" within the academic journal system, as they must rely on journals to publish papers to accumulate academic credentials, while most of the funding for this system actually comes from government or corporate research grants.
Specifically, the exploitative model of academic journals operates as follows:
- Researchers need to continuously publish papers to accumulate academic achievements in order to obtain more research funding and advance their careers.
- The research funding for papers primarily comes from government or corporate research grants, rather than from the researchers' own pockets.
- The publication fees (APC) for open access papers are also paid by research funding, not borne by the researchers personally.
- The journal subscription fees paid by research institutions are also mostly derived from government or corporate research funding.
- Since researchers mostly use external funding rather than self-funding, they often do not resist these high costs. Academic journals exploit this situation, forming a highly exploitative commercial model that charges both authors and readers while monopolizing paper copyrights.
D. Poorly Designed Peer Review Process
The issues with academic journals are not limited to their profit model; the inefficiency and lack of transparency in their publishing processes are also concerning. During my six years in academia, I published four papers and encountered numerous problems, particularly with the inefficient submission process and the highly luck-dependent peer review system.
The standard peer review process for most journals typically includes the following steps:
Researchers organize their research findings, write papers, and submit them to the target journal.
The journal editor assesses whether the paper fits the journal's scope and basic standards. If appropriate, the editor assigns 2-3 peer reviewers to evaluate the paper.
The peer reviewers evaluate the paper, provide comments and feedback, and make one of the following four decisions:
- Accept: The paper can be published directly without modification.
- Minor Revisions: The paper is basically accepted but requires minor modifications.
- Major Revisions: The paper requires significant modifications, after which a decision will be made on whether to accept it.
- Reject: The paper is directly rejected and will not be published.
Researchers revise the paper based on the reviewers' comments, and the editor makes the final decision.
Although this process seems reasonable, it is actually full of inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and heavily reliant on subjective judgment, which may undermine the quality and fairness of the review system.
Problem 1: Extremely Low Review Efficiency
Although review times may vary across different disciplines, in the natural sciences and engineering fields, the approximate timeline from paper submission to final decision is as follows:
- Desk Reject Time: 1 week - 2 months
- Time to Receive Peer Review Feedback: 3 weeks - 4 months
- Time to Receive Final Decision: 3 months - 1 year
If there are delays from the journal or reviewers, or if the paper requires multiple rounds of review, the entire publication cycle may exceed one year.
For example, in my case, the editor sent my paper to 3 peer reviewers, but 1 reviewer did not respond, causing the journal to seek new reviewers, which added an extra 4 months to the review time.
Even worse, if a paper undergoes a long review process and is still rejected, researchers must resubmit to another journal, meaning that the entire process needs to start over, effectively doubling the time.
Such an inefficient publication process is extremely detrimental to researchers because while waiting for publication, other teams may have already published similar research, leading to a loss of the paper's novelty, which can severely impact the researchers' careers.
Problem 2: Shortage of Reviewers Leads to High Randomness in Review Results
As mentioned earlier, each paper is usually reviewed by 2-3 peer reviewers, and whether the paper is ultimately accepted often depends on the opinions of these few individuals.
Although peer reviewers are typically experts in the field, the review results still carry a certain element of luck.
For example, in my personal experience:
- I submitted a paper to a top journal A and received two major revision comments and one minor revision comment, but the paper was ultimately rejected.
- Subsequently, I submitted to a slightly lower-tier journal B, but the result was even worse—one reviewer rejected it outright, while another reviewer suggested major revisions.
- Ironically, the academic impact of journal B is actually lower than that of journal A, yet the review comments were stricter.
This exposes a problem: the paper review heavily relies on the subjective opinions of a few peer reviewers, while journal editors have complete discretion in selecting reviewers.
In other words, whether a paper passes or not, to some extent, depends on "luck":
- If the reviewers are relatively lenient, the paper may pass smoothly;
- If the reviewers are relatively strict, the paper may be rejected outright.
In extreme cases, the same paper could be accepted if reviewed by three lenient reviewers, but rejected if reviewed by three strict reviewers.
Increasing the number of reviewers to improve review fairness is not realistic, as more reviewers mean higher communication costs and longer review times, which contradicts the operational goals of journals.
Problem 3: Lack of Incentives in Peer Review Leads to Poor Review Quality
The lack of incentive mechanisms in the peer review process results in varying quality of review comments. The situation varies by reviewer—some reviewers deeply understand the paper's content and provide valuable comments and questions, while others do not read the paper carefully, raise questions that have already been answered in the paper, or even provide irrelevant criticisms, which may ultimately lead to the paper being asked for major revisions or outright rejection.
This situation is quite common, and many researchers have experienced it, ultimately feeling that their efforts are unjustly dismissed.
The root cause of this problem is that there are no substantial incentive mechanisms in peer review, making quality control extremely difficult.
Currently, after receiving paper submissions, journals typically invite university professors or researchers in related fields to review. However, even if these reviewers spend time reading, analyzing, and writing review comments, they do not receive any compensation for it.
From the perspective of professors or graduate students, peer review is merely an additional unpaid burden, and the lack of incentives leads many reviewers to be perfunctory, or even unwilling to invest effort into a serious review.
Problem 4: Lack of Transparency in Peer Review Leads to Bias
Peer review employs an anonymous mechanism intended to ensure fairness, but the problem is that reviewers can see the authors' information, while the authors cannot know the identities of the reviewers.
This information asymmetry can lead to review bias, such as:
- "Favoritism in Review"—if the author is an acquaintance or academic partner of the reviewer, they may give lenient review comments, and even if the paper quality is average, it may be accepted.
- "Malicious Suppression"—if the paper's author comes from a competing team, the reviewer may deliberately provide negative feedback, or even delay the review process, causing the competitor to miss the opportunity to publish their paper.
This kind of "behind-the-scenes manipulation" in academia is far more common than people imagine.
E. The Illusion of Impact Factor
The final core issue of the journal system is Citation Count.
So, how do we assess a researcher's academic achievements and professional capabilities? Each researcher has different strengths:
- Some excel in experimental design,
- Some are good at identifying promising research directions,
- And some can delve into overlooked details.
However, it is nearly impossible to comprehensively assess each researcher qualitatively. Therefore, the academic community generally relies on quantitative metrics to measure a researcher's academic impact. This is primarily reflected in Citation Count and H-index.
In academia, researchers with higher H-index and citation counts are typically considered more successful.
The H-index is a measure of a researcher's academic output and impact. For example:
- If a researcher has an H-index of 10, it means they have at least 10 papers, each cited at least 10 times.
Although the H-index is a common metric for measuring research impact, ultimately, citation count remains the most important evaluation criterion.
So, how can researchers increase the citation count of their papers?
In addition to publishing high-quality papers, choosing the right research direction is equally crucial. The popularity of the research field and the number of researchers in that field both affect the citation count—more researchers mean a higher likelihood of citations, which naturally leads to a higher citation count.
Source: Clarivate
The table above shows the 2024 Journal Impact Factor (IF) rankings published by Clarivate. The Impact Factor (IF) indicates the average number of citations per paper published in a journal per year. For example, if a journal has an impact factor of 10, papers published in that journal are cited an average of 10 times per year.
Upon observing the rankings, it can be seen that high-impact factor journals are mainly concentrated in certain specific research fields, such as cancer, medicine, materials, energy, and machine learning. Even in broader disciplines like chemistry, the citation rates in subfields such as batteries and environmental energy are typically higher than those in traditional organic chemistry.
This indicates that the academic community's over-reliance on citation count as the primary evaluation criterion may lead researchers to concentrate on specific popular fields, thereby affecting the diversity of research.
Moreover, this also reflects that citation counts and impact factors are not universal standards for measuring the quality of researchers or journals. For example, among journals under the ACS (American Chemical Society):
- ACS Energy Letters has an impact factor of 19, while JACS (Journal of the American Chemical Society) has an impact factor of only 14.4, yet JACS has long been regarded as one of the most authoritative journals in the field of chemistry.
- Nature is generally considered one of the most ideal journals for researchers to publish in; however, due to its broad range of research fields, its impact factor is 50.5. In contrast, its sub-journal Nature Medicine, which focuses on the medical field, has an impact factor as high as 58.7.
F. Publish or Perish
Success stems from failure. Progress in any field requires failure as a stepping stone. The research results published in academia today are often the accumulation of countless experiments and failed attempts.
However, in modern scientific research, almost all papers only report the results of "successful" experiments, while the failed attempts that lead to success are often not published and may even be directly ignored.
In the highly competitive academic environment, researchers have little motivation to report failed experiments, as this offers no benefit to their career development and may even be seen as a waste of time.
3) Systemic Challenge Three: Collaboration
In the field of computer software, open-source projects have completely transformed the software development model, making code publicly accessible and encouraging global developers to contribute together, thus facilitating more efficient collaboration and higher-quality software products.
However, the trajectory of development in the scientific community is quite the opposite.
Letter from Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke
During the 17th century and other early periods of scientific development, scientists based their work on natural philosophy, prioritizing the sharing of knowledge, demonstrating an attitude of openness and collaboration, and actively distancing themselves from rigid authoritative systems. For example, despite the academic competition between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke, they still communicated their research findings through letters, critiquing and correcting each other, thereby jointly advancing scientific progress.
In contrast, the modern scientific research environment is much more closed. Researchers must compete fiercely for research funding and strive to publish papers in high-impact factor (IF) journals. Unpublished research is often kept strictly confidential, and external sharing is heavily restricted. As a result, laboratories within the same research field often view each other as competitors, lacking channels to understand each other's research progress.
Due to the fact that most research advances gradually based on previous studies, different laboratories are likely to study the same topics around the same time. However, in the absence of shared research processes, the same research often unfolds in parallel across multiple laboratories. This not only is extremely inefficient but also creates a "winner-takes-all" academic environment—the first laboratory to publish research results will receive all academic recognition.
Researchers often encounter situations where, just as they are about to complete their research, they find that other laboratories have already published similar studies, rendering their considerable efforts worthless.
In the worst-case scenario, even researchers within the same laboratory may conceal experimental data or research results from each other, creating internal competition rather than collaborative win-win situations.
Today, open source culture has become a cornerstone in the field of computer science. The modern scientific community also needs to shift towards a more open and collaborative culture to promote broader public interests.
3. How to Fix Traditional Science (TradSci)?
1) Many Have Tried to Improve
Researchers in the scientific community are well aware of the problems within the current system. However, despite these issues being apparent, they are often deep-rooted structural problems that cannot be easily resolved by individuals. Nevertheless, over the years, many attempts have been made to improve the situation.
A. Fixing Centralized Research Funding
- Fast Grants: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison discovered that traditional research funding processes were inefficient, leading to the initiation of the Fast Grants program, which raised $50 million to fund hundreds of research projects. The program made funding decisions within 14 days, with amounts ranging from $10,000 to $500,000, providing researchers with relatively substantial support.
- Renaissance Philanthropy: Founded by Tom Kalil, who served as a technology policy advisor in the Clinton and Obama administrations. This is a non-profit consulting organization focused on connecting funders with high-impact science and technology projects. The organization is funded by Eric and Wendy Schmidt, and its model is similar to the patronage system that European scientists once relied on.
- HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute): Unlike traditional project funding models, HHMI employs a unique funding model that directly supports individual researchers rather than specific research projects. This long-term funding model reduces the pressure on researchers for short-term results, allowing them to focus on ongoing scientific exploration.
- experiment.com: This is an online crowdfunding platform that allows researchers to present their research to the public and raise necessary funds from individual donors, providing a new model for decentralized research funding.
B. Improving Academic Journals
- PLOS ONE: PLOS ONE is an open access scientific journal where anyone can read, download, and share papers for free. It evaluates papers based on scientific validity rather than impact and accepts negative, invalid, or inconclusive research results, enjoying a high reputation in academia. Additionally, its streamlined publication process allows researchers to disseminate their findings more quickly. However, PLOS ONE charges researchers an article processing fee (APC) of $1,000–5,000, which remains a significant barrier.
- arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, PsyArXiv, SocArXiv: These preprint servers allow researchers to share drafts of their papers before formal publication, enabling rapid dissemination of research findings, assertion of research priority, and providing opportunities for community feedback and collaboration. At the same time, they are freely accessible to readers, greatly lowering the barriers to academic access.
- Sci-Hub: Founded by Kazakh programmer Alexandra Asanovna Elbakyan, Sci-Hub aims to bypass journal paywalls and provide free access to papers. Although the site is illegal in most jurisdictions and has faced multiple lawsuits from publishers like Elsevier, it is praised for promoting academic open access while also being controversial for violating the law.
C. Improving Academic Collaboration
- ResearchGate: A professional social platform for researchers that provides paper sharing, academic Q&A, and research collaboration opportunities, promoting global academic exchange.
- CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research): As a non-profit organization for particle physics research, CERN organizes many large experiments that individual laboratories find difficult to complete. It brings together researchers from multiple countries and funds based on the GDP contributions of participating countries, forming an international, collaborative research model.
2) DeSci: A New Wave of Transformation
Although the aforementioned attempts have made some progress in addressing the challenges of modern science, they have not brought about the disruptive impact necessary to fundamentally transform the academic system.
In recent years, with the rise of blockchain technology, a new concept called Decentralized Science (DeSci) has begun to gain attention and is seen as a potential solution to these structural problems.
But what exactly is DeSci? Can it really reshape the modern scientific system?
4. DeSci Emerges
1) Overview of DeSci
DeSci (Decentralized Science) aims to transform scientific knowledge into a public resource and build a more efficient, fair, transparent, and open scientific system by improving research funding, research processes, peer review, and research result sharing mechanisms.
Blockchain technology plays a central role in achieving this goal, with its main features including:
- Transparency: Except for private chains, blockchain is inherently open and transparent, allowing anyone to view on-chain transactions. This feature can enhance the transparency of research funding, peer review, and other processes, reducing opaque operations and unfair practices.
- Ownership: Blockchain assets are protected by private keys, allowing researchers to easily assert data ownership, thereby monetizing research results or establishing intellectual property (IP) rights for funded research.
- Incentive Scheme: Incentive mechanisms are at the core of blockchain networks. Through token incentives, DeSci can encourage researchers to participate more actively in research, review, and data sharing, increasing willingness to collaborate.
- Smart Contracts: Smart contracts run on decentralized networks and can automatically execute predetermined operations according to coded instructions. This feature can transparently and fairly manage research collaborations and automatically execute interactions such as research funding, data sharing, and research incentives.
2) Potential Applications of DeSci
As the name suggests, DeSci can be applied to multiple fields of scientific research. ResearchHub categorizes the potential applications of DeSci into the following five directions:
Research DAOs: These Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) focus on specific research topics and utilize blockchain technology to transparently manage research planning, funding allocation, governance voting, and project operations.
Publishing: Blockchain can decentralize the academic publishing system, fundamentally changing traditional publishing models. Research papers, data, and code can be permanently stored on the blockchain, ensuring data credibility, enabling free access for everyone, and enhancing review quality and transparency through token incentives for peer review.
Funding & IP: Researchers can easily raise research funds globally through blockchain networks. Additionally, research projects can be tokenized, allowing token holders to participate in research direction decisions and even share future intellectual property (IP) revenues.
Data: Blockchain provides a secure and transparent storage and management mechanism, supporting the sharing and verification of research data, reducing academic fraud and data tampering.
Infrastructure: This includes governance tools, storage solutions, community platforms, and identity authentication systems, all of which can be directly integrated into DeSci projects, supporting the development of a decentralized research ecosystem.
To truly understand DeSci, the best way is to delve into specific projects within the DeSci ecosystem and see how they address the structural issues of the modern scientific system. Next, we will focus on representative projects within the DeSci ecosystem.
5. DeSci Ecosystem
Source: ResearchHub
1) Why the Ethereum Ecosystem is Most Suitable for DeSci
Unlike fields such as DeFi, gaming, and artificial intelligence (AI), DeSci projects are primarily concentrated in the Ethereum ecosystem. The main reasons for this trend include:
Credible Neutrality: Among all smart contract platforms, Ethereum is the most neutral network. The DeSci field involves a significant amount of funds flow (such as research funding), making decentralization, fairness, censorship resistance, and credibility crucial. This makes Ethereum the optimal network for building DeSci projects.
Network Effect: Ethereum is the largest smart contract network in terms of user scale and liquidity. Compared to other fields, DeSci still belongs to a relatively niche track; if projects are distributed across multiple different public chains, it may lead to liquidity and ecological fragmentation, hindering project development. Therefore, most DeSci projects choose to build on Ethereum to fully leverage its strong network effects.
DeSci Infrastructure: Few DeSci projects are built completely from scratch; most will utilize existing DeSci infrastructure (such as Molecule) to accelerate development. Since currently most DeSci infrastructure tools are based on Ethereum, projects in this ecosystem naturally focus on Ethereum.
Based on these reasons, the DeSci projects introduced in this discussion mainly belong to the Ethereum ecosystem. Next, we will delve into representative projects in the DeSci field.
2) Funding & IP
A. Molecule
Source: Molecule
Molecule is a biopharmaceutical intellectual property (IP) funding and tokenization platform. Researchers can raise funds from numerous individuals through blockchain, tokenizing the intellectual property of research projects, while funders can receive IP Tokens based on their contribution ratio.
Catalyst is a decentralized research funding platform launched by Molecule to connect researchers with funders.
- Researchers need to prepare relevant documents and project plans and submit research proposals on the Catalyst platform.
- Funders can view proposals, choose projects to support, and provide funding using ETH.
- Once the project completes its funding, the platform will issue IP-NFTs (intellectual property NFTs) and IP Tokens, allowing funders to claim corresponding IP Tokens based on their funding ratio.
Source: Molecule
IP-NFT is the tokenized version of research project intellectual property (IP) on the blockchain, integrating two legal agreements into a smart contract.
- The first legal agreement is the Research Agreement, signed by researchers and funders. The agreement includes key terms such as scope of research, deliverables, timelines, budget, confidentiality clauses, intellectual property and data ownership, publication of papers, disclosure of research results, licensing, and patent conditions.
- The second legal agreement is the Assignment Agreement, which ensures that the rights of the Research Agreement can be transferred with changes in the ownership of the IP-NFT, meaning that the current IP-NFT holder's rights can be transferred to a new owner.
IP Tokens represent partial governance rights over the intellectual property of research projects. - Token holders can participate in key research decisions and access exclusive research information.
- IP Tokens do not directly guarantee the distribution of research results' profits, but future commercialization profits may be decided by IP holders on whether to distribute to IP Token holders.
Source: Molecule
The price of IP Tokens is determined by the Catalyst Bonding Curve, which reflects the relationship between token supply and price. As more tokens are issued, the token price gradually increases. This mechanism incentivizes early funders, allowing them to acquire IP Tokens at a lower cost, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of research funding.
Here are some cases of successful research funding completed through Molecule:
- Fang Laboratory at the University of Oslo: The Fang Laboratory focuses on aging and Alzheimer's disease research and received funding from VitaDAO through the Molecule IP-NFT framework to identify and characterize new drug candidates that activate mitophagy, which is significant for Alzheimer's research.
- Artan Bio: Artan Bio focuses on tRNA-related research and obtained $91,300 in research funding from the VitaDAO community through the Molecule IP-NFT framework.
B. Bio.xyz
_source: _Bio.xyz
Bio.xyz is a curation and liquidity protocol in the DeSci field, similar to an incubator supporting BioDAOs. Its goals include:
- Curating, creating, and accelerating new BioDAOs to fund research on-chain.
- Providing long-term funding and liquidity for BioDAOs and on-chain biotechnology assets.
- Standardizing the framework, token economic model, and data/product system of BioDAOs.
- Facilitating the generation and commercialization of scientific intellectual property (IP) and research data.
BIO Token holders can vote to decide which new BioDAOs join the ecosystem. Once a BioDAO is approved to join the BIO ecosystem, the BIO Token holders who voted in support of that BioDAO can participate in its initial token auction, similar to whitelist seed round financing.
Approved BioDAO governance tokens (such as VITA) will be paired with BIO Tokens and added to the liquidity pool, thereby solving the liquidity issue of governance tokens for BioDAOs (e.g., VITA/BIO trading pair). Additionally, Bio.xyz runs a bio/acc reward program, providing BIO Token rewards to BioDAOs that achieve key milestones.
Furthermore, the BIO Token serves as a meta-governance token for multiple BioDAOs, allowing BIO holders to participate in the governance of multiple BioDAOs. At the same time, Bio.xyz provides $100,000 in funding to incubating BioDAOs and acquires 6.9% of their token supply to increase the assets under management (AUM) of the protocol, enhancing the value of BIO Tokens.
Bio.xyz utilizes Molecule's IP-NFT and IP Token (IP Tokens) framework for intellectual property management. For example, VitaDAO has successfully issued IP Tokens within the Bio ecosystem (such as VitaRNA and VITA-FAST).
Currently, the research-oriented DAOs being incubated by Bio.xyz include:
- Cerebrum DAO: Focused on preventing neurodegenerative diseases.
- PsyDAO: Committed to promoting consciousness evolution through safe and accessible psychedelic experiences.
- cryoDAO: Advancing cryopreservation research.
- AthenaDAO: Promoting women's health research.
- ValleyDAO: Supporting synthetic biology research.
- HairDAO: Collaborating to develop hair loss treatment solutions.
- VitaDAO: Focused on longevity research.
C. Summary
**Bio.xyz is responsible for curating BioDAOs and providing token economic frameworks, liquidity services, research funding, and incubation support**. When the **intellectual property (IP)** of **BioDAOs within the Bio ecosystem** is successfully commercialized, the **value of Bio.xyz's treasury increases, creating a virtuous cycle**.
###
3) **Research DAOs**
#### A. **VitaDAO**
Among many research-oriented DAOs, VitaDAO is undoubtedly one of the most well-known. It has garnered significant attention not only because it is an early project in the DeSci field but also because it received lead investment from Pfizer Ventures in 2023.
**VitaDAO focuses on longevity and aging research, having funded over 24 projects to date, providing more than $4.2 million in funding. In return, VitaDAO acquires IP-NFTs or equity in related companies through the IP-NFT framework of Molecule.xyz.**
VitaDAO fully leverages the transparency of blockchain, with its treasury publicly accessible, currently valued at approximately $44 million, which includes about $2.3 million in equity and $29 million in tokenized IP assets. VITA Token holders can participate in governance voting to determine the direction of the DAO and gain access to certain healthcare services.
**The most representative projects funded by VitaDAO are VitaRNA and VITA-FAST. The IP of both projects has been tokenized and is actively traded in the market:**
* **VitaRNA** has a market cap of approximately **$13 million**.
* **VITA-FAST** has a market cap of approximately **$24 million**.
Both regularly hold meetings with the **VitaDAO community** to update on research progress.
#### **Representative Research Projects**
* **VitaRNA**
* An **IP Token** project led by the biotechnology company Artan Bio.
* Received funding from VitaDAO in **June 2023**, issued **IP-NFTs and split into IP Tokens** in **January 2024**.
* Research focus: **Inhibiting arginine nonsense mutations**, particularly the **CGA codon**, which is crucial in **DNA damage repair, neurodegenerative diseases, and tumor suppressor** proteins.
* **VITA-FAST**
* An **IP Token project** managed by the **Viktor Korolchuk Laboratory at Newcastle University**.
* Research focus: **Discovering new autophagy activators**.
* **Autophagy** is a cellular process whose decline is considered a significant cause of biological aging. VITA-FAST aims to **explore anti-aging and related disease treatments by activating autophagy**, ultimately **enhancing human healthspan**.
#### B. **HairDAO**
**HairDAO** is an **open-source R&D network** where patients and researchers can **collaborate to develop hair loss treatment solutions**.
According to Scandinavian Biolabs, hair loss affects 85% of men and 50% of women during their lifetime. **However, the existing treatment options on the market are extremely limited, only including Minoxidil, Finasteride, and Dutasteride**. Notably, Minoxidil was approved by the FDA as early as 1988, and Finasteride was approved in 1997.
Even so, these approved treatments **can only slow down or temporarily suppress hair loss, but cannot truly cure it**. The development of hair loss treatments has been slow, primarily influenced by the following factors:
* **Complex etiology**: Hair loss is caused by a combination of **genetic, hormonal changes, immune responses, and other factors**, making it **extremely challenging to develop effective and targeted treatment options**.
* **High R&D costs**: Developing new drugs **requires significant funding and time**, but since hair loss **is not life-threatening**, it ranks **low on the research funding priority list**, limiting progress in this field.
HairDAO promotes research development through a **decentralized incentive mechanism**:
* **Patients** sharing their **treatment experiences and data** on the **HairDAO application** can earn **HAIR governance tokens** as rewards.
* **HAIR Token holders** can **participate in DAO governance voting** to determine research funding directions.
* Holding **HAIR Tokens** allows for **discounts on HairDAO's shampoo products**.
* **Staking HAIR Tokens** provides **faster access to confidential research data**.
####
C. **Other Research DAOs**
* **CryoDAO**
* Focused on **cryopreservation research**.
* **Treasury** of over **$7 million**, having funded **5 research projects**.
* **CRYO Token holders** can **participate in governance voting** and have the opportunity to **access research breakthroughs and data early or exclusively**.
* **ValleyDAO**
* Aims to **address climate challenges by funding synthetic biology research**.
* Synthetic biology **utilizes organisms to sustainably synthesize nutrients, fuels, and medicines**, regarded as a **key technology in combating climate change**.
* Currently funding multiple projects, including **Professor Rodrigo Ledesma-Amaro's research at Imperial College London**.
* **CerebrumDAO**
* Focused on **brain health research**, particularly **Alzheimer’s prevention**.
* Its **Snapshot page** showcases several **funding-seeking research proposals**.
* **Decentralized governance decisions**, with all funding decisions made by **DAO members' votes**.
### 4) **Publishing**
#### A. **ResearchHub**
_Source: ResearchHub_
**ResearchHub** is currently the **leading academic publishing platform in the DeSci field**, aiming to become **“the GitHub of the scientific community.”** The platform was founded by **Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong** and **Patrick Joyce**, and completed a **$5 million Series A funding round in June 2023**, led by **Open Source Software Capital**.
ResearchHub provides **open research publishing and discussion tools**, incentivizing researchers to **publish papers, conduct peer reviews**, and **curate academic content** through the **RSC (ResearchCoin) Token**.
Its core features include:
* **Grants**
_Source: ResearchHub_
Users can create **Grants** using **RSC Tokens** to request other **ResearchHub users** to complete specific tasks. The main types of grants include:
* **Peer Review**: Requesting a review of a **manuscript**.
* **Answer to Question**: Requesting answers to **specific questions**.
* **Funding**. 
_Source: ResearchHub_
In the **Funding** tab, researchers can **upload research proposals** and **receive RSC Token funding** from users.
##### ①. **Journals**
_Source: ResearchHub_
The **Journals** section archives **papers from peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers**. Users can **browse academic literature and participate in discussions**. However, many **peer-reviewed papers are behind paywalls**, and users often can only **view abstracts written by others**.
#####
②. **Research Hubs**
_Source: ResearchHub_
**Research Hubs** archive **preprint papers categorized by discipline**. All papers in this section are **Open Access**, allowing anyone to **read the full content and participate in discussions**.
#####
③. **Lab Notebook**
The **Lab Notebook** is an **online collaborative workspace** that allows **multiple users to co-author papers**. Similar to **Google Docs or Notion**, this feature supports **seamless integration into ResearchHub and direct publication**.
#####
④. **RH Journal**
_Source: ResearchHub_
The **RH Journal** is **ResearchHub's own academic journal**. It features an **efficient peer review process**, with a **review cycle of 14 days and final decisions made within 21 days**. Additionally, it introduces a **peer review incentive mechanism** to **address the misalignment of incentives in traditional peer review systems**.
**RSC Token**
_Source: ResearchHub_
**RSC Token (RSC Token)** is an **ERC-20 Token in the ResearchHub ecosystem**, with a total supply of **1 billion**. The RSC Token is designed to **promote user participation** and **support ResearchHub in achieving a fully decentralized open platform**.
The main uses of the RSC Token include:
* **Governance Voting**
* **Tipping Other Users**
* **Bounty Programs**
* **Incentives for Peer Reviewers**
* **Rewards for Curating Research Papers**
####
B. **ScieNFT**
**ScieNFT** is a **Decentralized Preprint Server** where researchers can **publish their research findings in the form of NFTs**. The **publishable content** is not limited to papers but also includes **images, research ideas, datasets, artworks, research methods, and even negative experimental results**.
ScieNFT **adopts a decentralized storage solution**, with preprint data stored on **IPFS** and Filecoin, while **NFT assets are uploaded to Avalanche C-Chain**.
Although **using NFTs to track the ownership and provenance of research results is an advantage**, ScieNFT also faces some issues:
* **The actual value and utility of purchasing these NFTs are not yet clear**.
* **There is a lack of effective market curation mechanisms**, affecting content quality management.
####
**C. deScier**
_Source: deScier_
####
D. **deScier**
**deScier** is a **decentralized scientific journal platform**. Similar to traditional publishers like **Elsevier or Springer Nature**, deScier also **hosts multiple journals**.
On the deScier platform, **100% of the copyright for all papers belongs to the researchers**, and **peer review** remains a **necessary process**.
However, the **main issues** faced by the platform are:
* **The number of papers published in journals is relatively low**.
* **The speed of paper uploads is slow**, affecting the frequency of content updates.
###
5) **Data**
#### A. **Data Lake**
The **Data Lake** software enables researchers to **integrate various user recruitment channels**, track their **effectiveness**, manage **data usage consent**, and conduct **pre-screening surveys**, while **ensuring users' control over their own data**.
The platform allows researchers to **share and easily manage patient data usage consent**, so that **third parties can access the data reasonably and compliantly**.
**Data Lake uses Data Lake Chain**, which is an **L3 network based on Arbitrum Orbit**, specifically designed for **managing patient data usage consent**.
#### B. **Welshare Health**
_Source: Welshare Health_
In **traditional medical research**, one of the biggest bottlenecks is the **slow recruitment of clinical trial participants** and **insufficient patient numbers**. Additionally, while **patients' medical data is highly valuable, there is a risk of misuse**. Welshare aims to address these issues through **Web3 technology**.
* **Patients** can **safely manage their personal medical data** and **monetize their data** to earn income while receiving **personalized medical services**.
* **Medical researchers** can **more easily access diverse datasets**, thereby **accelerating medical research**.
Welshare allows users to **selectively provide data** through an **application based on Base Network** to **earn in-app reward points**, which can be **redeemed for cryptocurrency or fiat currency**.
#### C. **Hippocrat**
**Hippocrat** is a **decentralized medical data protocol** that allows individuals to **securely manage their health data using blockchain and zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) technology**.
Its first product, **HippoDoc**, is a **telemedicine application** that combines **medical databases, artificial intelligence (AI) technology, and professional healthcare support** to provide medical consultations for patients.
Throughout the consultation process, **patient data is securely stored on the blockchain**, ensuring privacy protection and data security.
### 6）**DeSci Infrastructure**
#### A. **Ceramic**
**Ceramic** is a **Decentralized Event Streaming Protocol** that allows developers to create **decentralized databases, distributed computing pipelines, and authentication data streams**. Due to its characteristics, Ceramic is **well-suited for DeSci projects**, enabling it to function as a **decentralized database**:
* Data on the **Ceramic network can be accessed without permission**, allowing researchers to **share and collaborate on data**, enhancing research efficiency.
* Operations such as **research papers, citations, and peer reviews** are represented on the **Ceramic network** as **“Ceramic Streams,”** with each stream **modifiable only by its creator account**, ensuring **intellectual property (IP) traceability**.
* **Ceramic also provides a Verifiable Claims infrastructure**, allowing DeSci projects to **adopt its reputation management system**, enhancing the trust mechanism in research.
#### B. **bloXberg**
**bloXberg** is a **blockchain infrastructure dedicated to scientific research**, led by the **Max Planck Digital Library** in Germany, with collaborating institutions including **ETH Zurich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and IT University of Copenhagen**, among other renowned research organizations.
**bloXberg aims to drive innovation in scientific research processes**, with application areas including:
* **Research data management**
* **Peer Review**
* **Intellectual Property Protection**
By **decentralizing these processes through blockchain technology**, bloXberg enhances **transparency and efficiency in research**. Researchers can **safely share and collaborate on research data**, ensuring the credibility and immutability of the data.
6. **Is DeSci Really a Universal Cure?**
---------------------
We have explored the **structural issues of the modern scientific system** and how **DeSci attempts to address these issues**. But the question is—**Can DeSci truly disrupt the scientific community and become a core force as claimed by the crypto community?**
I do not think so. However, **DeSci does have the potential to play a supportive role in specific areas**.
### 1) **What Blockchain Can and Cannot Solve**
**Blockchain is not magic**; it **cannot solve all problems**. Therefore, we need to **clearly distinguish between the problems that blockchain can solve and those it cannot**.
#### A. **Research Funding**
**DeSci has advantages in the following funding scenarios**:
* **Small-scale grants**
* **Research with commercialization potential**
**The scale of research funding varies greatly**, ranging from **tens of thousands to millions, even tens of millions of dollars**. For **large-scale research projects**, **centralized funding from governments or corporations is inevitable**. However, **raising funds for small-scale research** through **DeSci platforms is feasible**.
For **researchers involved in small-scale studies**, **lengthy application processes and cumbersome paperwork** are heavy burdens. In this case, the **quick and efficient financing methods provided by DeSci funding platforms** are highly attractive.
However, it should be noted that **if one wants to obtain funding support from the public through DeSci platforms, research projects need to have reasonable commercialization prospects**, such as **patents** or **technology transfer**. Only with **expected returns on investment** will the public be motivated to fund these projects.
However, **most modern scientific research is not aimed at commercialization**, but rather **serves the technological competitiveness of nations or corporations**.
**Therefore, the research fields most suitable for raising funds through DeSci platforms include**:
* **Biotech**
* **Healthcare**
* **Pharmaceuticals**
Currently, most **DeSci projects** focus on these areas based on this logic. Research in these industries **has a high potential for commercialization once successful**. Additionally, although the final commercialization phase **requires substantial funding**, the **initial stages of research require relatively less funding**, making **DeSci platforms an ideal choice for early-stage financing**.
#### B. **Can DeSci Support Long-term Research?**
**I am skeptical about whether DeSci can truly promote long-term research.**
Indeed, **a few researchers may receive long-term funding from public welfare or voluntary donations**, but **this culture is unlikely to spread widely across the entire scientific community**.
Even if **DeSci platforms utilize blockchain**, there is no causal relationship indicating that it can support long-term research funding.
If we **must find a connection between blockchain and long-term research**, we might consider **“milestone funding” based on **smart contracts**, where **funding is gradually unlocked only when the research reaches certain stages**.
#### C. **Journals**
**The area where DeSci is most likely to bring innovation is academic journals.** Through **smart contracts** and token incentives, DeSci could **reconstruct the profit model monopolized by traditional journals**, shifting the focus **to researchers**. However, in reality, this transformation will be highly challenging.
For researchers, **publishing papers is the most critical factor in their academic careers**. In academia, a researcher's ability is **mainly measured by the level of journals they publish in, the citation count, and the h-index**.
**Humans instinctively rely on authority**, a fact that **has not changed from prehistoric times to the present**. For example, an obscure researcher who manages to publish in top journals like Nature, Science, or Cell may achieve overnight fame.
Although **ideally, assessments of researchers should be based on “quality” rather than “quantity”**, **qualitative assessments overly rely on peer recommendations, ultimately leading to inevitable quantitative evaluations**.
This is why academic journals hold significant power. Even if they monopolize the profit model, researchers still have to comply.
If **DeSci journals** want to **gain greater influence**, they **must establish authority**. However, **achieving the academic reputation accumulated by traditional journals over a century** is **almost impossible** with just token incentives.
Although **DeSci may not completely overturn the academic journal system**, it **can indeed play a role in specific areas**, such as **peer review and negative results**.
* **Peer review issues**: As mentioned earlier, **current peer review has almost no incentive mechanisms**, leading to **poor quality and efficiency in reviews**.
- Providing token rewards can incentivize reviewers to improve review quality, thereby raising journal standards.
- Publication of negative research results: Currently, the academic community rarely publishes negative results, but if a dedicated DeSci journal is established for publishing negative research results, combined with token incentives, researchers will be more motivated to disclose failed experimental data.
- Due to the lower reputation impact of negative research journals, combined with token incentives, this model may develop well.
D. Collaboration
In my opinion, blockchain is unlikely to significantly improve the fierce competition in modern science. Unlike in the past, the number of researchers today is vast, and every academic achievement directly impacts career development, making competition an unavoidable reality. It is unrealistic to expect blockchain to solve the collaboration issues of the entire scientific community.
On the other hand, within small research groups (such as research-oriented DAOs), blockchain can effectively facilitate collaboration.
- In the DAO system, researchers can align interests through token incentive mechanisms, working together to achieve a shared vision.
- Research outcomes can be recorded with blockchain timestamps to ensure contributions are recognized.
I hope that in the future, not only in the field of biotechnology, more disciplines will see the growth and increased activity of research-oriented DAOs.
7. Conclusion: DeSci Needs a “Bitcoin Moment”
The modern scientific community faces numerous structural challenges, and DeSci offers a noteworthy solution. Although DeSci may not completely disrupt the entire scientific system, it can gradually attract researchers and users who truly benefit from it, achieving steady expansion.
Ultimately, we may see a balance point where traditional science (TradSci) coexists with decentralized science (DeSci). Just as Bitcoin was initially seen as a toy for geeks, it has now attracted many traditional financial institutions. I hope that DeSci can also gain recognition in its long-term development and welcome its "Bitcoin moment".
Article link: https://www.hellobtc.com/kp/du/03/5695.html
Source: https://x.com/100y_eth/status/1895806907375632740
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。
