I recently earned a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering and published four first-author papers during my studies. Among these were publications in some of the highest-ranking academic journals, including Nature's sister journals and the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS).
Although my academic experience has been limited to that of a graduate student without serving as a principal investigator, which could be an incomplete perspective, my nearly six years in academia noticed numerous structural issues within the system.
In this context, the idea of DeSci (Decentralized Science) leveraging blockchain technology to challenge centralized structures in science is undoubtedly fascinating. The crypto market has recently been swept by a DeSci trend, with many claiming it could revolutionize the scientific landscape.
I, too, hope for such a transformation. However, I believe that the chance of DeSci completely overturning traditional academia is not high. To summarize my view, the most likely scenario is that DeSci will play a complementary role in addressing specific issues within the conventional academic system.
Thus, with 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, evaluate whether blockchain technology can genuinely address these issues, and discuss the potential impact of DeSci on the academic world.
How DeSci went from a niche concept to a growing movement
The longstanding structural issues within academia have been well-documented, as seen in articles like VOX’s “The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists” and “The war to free science.” Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to address these challenges, some of which will be explored later.
Decentralized science (DeSci) seeks to solve these problems by incorporating blockchain technology into scientific research. The field gained attention around 2020, especially after Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong introduced ResearchHub—an effort to realign incentives in scientific research via ResearchCoin (RSC).
However, due to the speculative nature of capital in the crypto market, DeSci failed to attract widespread interest among users. For a long time, only small communities championed its future—until the emergence of pump.science.
The butterfly effect of pump.science
(Source: pump.science)pump.science is a DeSci project in the Solana ecosystem built by Molecule, a well-known DeSci platform. It functions as a funding platform while streaming long-term experiments using Wormbot technology.
Users can propose compounds they believe could extend their lifespan or purchase tokens associated with these ideas. Once the token’s market cap surpasses a certain threshold, experiments are conducted using Wormbot equipment to verify whether the compound can truly extend the lifespan of the test subjects. If successful, token holders gain rights to the compound.
However, some community members have criticized this approach, claiming that the experiments lack sufficient scientific rigor and are unlikely to lead to actual life-extending pharmaceuticals. Gwart's sarcastic remark reflects a particular school of thought that eyes DeSci with skepticism and questions the arguments made by proponents.
pump.science adopted the bonding curve mechanism, similar to what Molecule uses—meaning the token price increases as more users purchase it. The launch of tokens like RIF (representing Rifampicin) and URO (representing Urolithin A) coincided with a meme token frenzy in the crypto market, driving their prices higher. This price surge unintentionally brought widespread attention to DeSci. Ironically, it was not DeSci’s essence but the speculative rise in token prices that ignited the current wave of interest in DeSci.
(Source: Kaito)Consequently, DeSci became one of the hottest trends between late 2024 and early 2025—after existing as a niche sector for years. Not only did tokens from pump.science skyrocket, but Binance announced its investment in DeSci funding protocol Bio, while other established DeSci tokens also experienced significant price increases, marking a pivotal moment for the movement.
Where does traditional science fall short?
No exaggeration—academia faces numerous systemic and severe issues. During my time in the academic world, I constantly questioned how such a flawed structure could remain sustainable. Before diving into the potential of DeSci, let’s first examine the shortcomings of the traditional academic system.
Poor funding models
Before the 19th century, scientists secured research funding and earned their livings in very different ways from today:
- Patronage: European monarchs and aristocrats provided financial support to researchers to enhance their prestige and contribute to scientific advancements. For instance, Galileo received patronage from the Medici family, enabling him to continue his telescope development and astronomical studies. Religious institutions also played a role in advancing science, with churches and clergy funding research in astronomy, mathematics, and medicine during the Middle Ages.
- Self-funding: Many scientists sustained their research through personal income from other professions. They worked as university professors, teachers, authors, or engineers to fund their scientific endeavors.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, centralized funding systems from governments and corporations began to take root. During World War I and II, governments established various agencies and invested heavily in defense research to secure victory in the wars.
In the U.S., organizations like the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and the National Research Council (NRC) were founded during World War I. Similarly, in Germany, the predecessor of today’s German Research Foundation (DFG), Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft, was established in 1920. Around the same time, corporate research labs like Bell Labs and GE Research also emerged, marking a shift where corporations joined governments in actively funding R&D.
This government- and corporate-driven funding model became the norm and continues to dominate today. Governments and corporations allocate significant budgets to R&D, supporting researchers worldwide. For instance, the U.S. federal government spent a staggering $190 billion on R&D in 2023, a 13% increase compared to 2022.
(Source: ResearchHub)In the United States, the funding process involves the federal government allocating a portion of its budget to R&D. These funds are then distributed to various agencies. Prominent examples include the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest funder of biomedical research; the Department of Defense (DoD), which focuses on defense research; the National Science Foundation (NSF), funding science and engineering across disciplines; the Department of Energy (DOE), responsible for renewable energy and nuclear physics; and NASA, which supports space and aeronautics research.
Centralized funding distorts science
Today, it is virtually impossible for university professors to conduct research independently without external funding. As a result, they are forced to rely on financial support from governments or corporations. Many of the issues affecting modern academia arise from this centralized funding model.
The first major issue is inefficiency in the funding process. Although the process details differ by country and organization, it is universally described as lengthy, opaque, and inefficient.
To secure funding, research labs must go through extensive paperwork and presentations, undergoing rigorous evaluations by government or corporate bodies. While prestigious and well-established labs can receive millions or even tens of millions of dollars from a single grant, requiring less frequent involvement in the funding process, this is not the norm.
For most labs, funding is typically tens of thousands of dollars, necessitating repeated applications, extensive documentation, and continuous reviews. Conversations with graduate student friends show that many researchers and students cannot dedicate their time fully to research. Instead, they are consumed by tasks related to funding applications and participating in corporate projects.
Additionally, many of these corporate projects are minimally relevant to the student’s graduation research, underscoring this system's inefficiencies.
(Source: NSF)Spending significant time on funding applications may eventually pay off, but unfortunately, securing funding is not easy. According to the NSF, the funding rates for 2023 and 2024 were 29% and 26%, respectively, with the median annual grant size being a modest $150,000. Similarly, the NIH reports funding success rates that typically range between 15% and 30%. Since a single grant is often insufficient for many academic researchers, they are forced to apply multiple times to sustain their work.
The challenges don’t stop there. Networking plays a crucial role in securing funding. Professors often collaborate with their peers rather than applying independently to increase their chances of obtaining grants. It’s also not uncommon for professors to engage in informal lobbying with funding stakeholders to secure corporate funding. This reliance on networking and the lack of transparency in the funding selection process are significant barriers for early-career researchers attempting to enter the system.
Another major issue with centralized funding is the lack of incentives for long-term research. Grants lasting more than five years are extremely rare. According to NSF data, most grants are awarded for 1–5 years, and other government agencies follow a similar pattern. Corporate R&D projects also typically provide grants for 1–3 years, depending on the company and project.
Politics heavily influence government funding. For example, during the Trump administration, defense R&D funding increased significantly, while under Democratic leadership, funding tended to focus on environmental research. Because government priorities shift with political agendas, long-term funding projects are uncommon.
Corporate funding faces similar limitations. In 2022, the median tenure of S&P 500 CEOs was 4.8 years, with other executives serving for comparable durations. Given that companies must adapt quickly to changing industries and technologies—and these executives often make funding decisions—corporate-funded projects rarely extend over long periods.
As a result, centralized funding systems incentivize researchers to pursue projects that yield quick and tangible results. To secure continuous funding, researchers are pressured to produce results within five years, leading them to select research topics that fit this timeline. This perpetuates a cycle of short-term focus, so only a handful of groups or institutions undertake long-term projects requiring more than five years.
Centralized funding also drives researchers toward producing a higher quantity of lower-quality work due to the pressure to deliver quick results. Research can be divided into incremental advancements that build slightly upon existing knowledge and groundbreaking discoveries that create entirely new territory. Centralized funding systems naturally prioritize the first option over the second. Most studies published in journals outside the top tier offer incremental improvements rather than transformative insights.
While it’s true that modern science has become highly specialized, making groundbreaking discoveries more challenging, centralized funding systems make the problem worse by further discouraging innovative research. This systemic preference for incremental work acts as yet another obstacle to revolutionary advancements in science.
(Source: Nature)Some researchers even manipulate data or make false claims. The current funding mechanisms, which demand results within tight timeframes, create incentives for such misconduct. As a graduate student, it wasn’t uncommon to hear news of students from other labs falsifying data. According to Nature, the proportion of retracted papers in conferences and journals has sharply increased over time.
Centralized funding is inevitable
To clarify, centralized funding itself isn’t inherently bad. While this funding model has led to these negative side effects, it is essential for modern science. Unlike in the past, today’s scientific research is highly complex and sophisticated. A single research project by a graduate student can cost anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and large-scale efforts like defense, aerospace, or fundamental physics require exponentially more resources.
Centralized funding is essential, but the accompanying problems must be addressed. The hope among proponents of DeSci is that crypto's success at reshaping financial mechanisms can be applied to fixing the broken model of funding cutting-edge research. Whether such efforts will fail or succeed is still up for debate.
Misaligned incentives for journals
Companies like Tether, Circle (stablecoin issuers), Binance, and Coinbase (centralized exchanges) are seen as dominant players in the crypto industry. Similarly, in academia, the most powerful entities are academic journals. Key examples include Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, the American Chemical Society, and IEEE.
For instance, Elsevier generated $3.67 billion in revenue and $2.55 billion in net income in 2022, achieving an extraordinary net profit margin of nearly 70%. In perspective, 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 massive scale of the academic publishing business.
The typical revenue streams for academic journals include:
- Subscription Fees: Accessing papers published in a journal often requires a subscription or a one-time fee to access specific articles.
- Article Processing Charges (APCs): Many papers are behind paywalls. However, authors can opt to pay publication costs to make their articles open-access.
- Licensing and Reprints: In most cases, copyright is transferred to the publisher upon publication. Journals monetize these papers through educational or commercial licensing.
At this point, you might wonder, “Why are journals the apex predators of academia? Isn’t their business structure similar to other industries?” The answer is no. Journals exemplify misaligned incentives in academia.
While traditional publishers or online platforms typically aim to make authors’ work accessible to a broad audience and share revenue with the creators, academic journals are structured entirely in favor of the publishers.
Journals play a crucial role in communicating researchers’ findings to readers, but their revenue models are primarily designed to benefit the publishers, leaving authors and readers with minimal advantages.
Readers wishing to access articles from specific journals must pay subscription fees or purchase individual articles. However, if researchers want to publish their work as open-access, they must pay processing charges to the journals, and they do not receive any share of the revenue generated. It doesn’t stop there—researchers not only forgo revenue sharing but, in most cases, the copyright of their work is transferred to the journal upon publication, 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 its revenue flow and brutal in terms of scale. For example, one of the most prominent fully open-access journals in the natural sciences, Nature Communications, charges authors an exorbitant $6,790 per article as an article processing fee. Researchers are required to pay this amount to have their papers published in Nature Communications.
(Source: ACS)The subscription fees for academic journals are also staggering. While annual institutional subscription fees vary depending on the journal's field and type, 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 cost rises to an astronomical $170,000. For journals under Springer Nature, the average annual subscription fee is around $10,000 per journal, and subscribing to all of their journals costs about $630,000. Since most research institutions subscribe to numerous journals, the subscription expenses for readers can be exceptionally high.
The most troubling aspect of this system is that researchers are effectively forced to publish in journals to build their academic credentials, and much of the money flowing through the journal business comes from government or corporate research funding:
- Researchers must consistently build their track record to secure funding and advance their careers. Journal publications are the most critical and often the only way to achieve this.
- The research conducted to write these papers is primarily funded by government or corporate grants.
- The processing charges for publishing open-access articles are also paid using these grants.
- Subscription fees paid by institutions for accessing journal articles are likewise covered by these grants.
Since researchers primarily use external funding rather than personal funds, they may be more inclined to accept these expenses. Academic journals have exploited this system by charging authors and readers while retaining the copyright of published work, creating an egregiously exploitative revenue model.
Poorly-designed peer review process
The problems with journals extend beyond their revenue structure to the inefficiencies and lack of transparency in their publishing processes. Over my six years in academia, during which I published four papers, I encountered many issues, particularly the inefficient submission process and the opaque, luck-dependent peer review system.
The standard peer review process for most journals typically follows these steps:
- Researchers compile their findings into a manuscript and submit it to their target journal.
- The journal editor evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with its scope and meets general standards. If deemed suitable, the editor assigns two to three peer reviewers to evaluate the paper.
- Peer reviewers assess the manuscript, providing feedback through comments and questions. They then make one of four recommendations:
- Accept: Approve the manuscript without revisions.
- Minor Revisions: Approve the manuscript pending minor corrections.
- Major Revisions: Approve the manuscript pending substantial changes.
- Reject: Decline the manuscript outright.
- The researcher revises the paper based on the reviewers’ feedback, after which the editor makes a final decision.
While seemingly straightforward, this process is fraught with inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and a significant reliance on subjective judgment, which can undermine the system's quality and fairness.
The first issue is the highly inefficient review process. While I cannot speak for other fields, in natural sciences and engineering, the timeline for submitting a paper and proceeding through the review process is roughly as follows:
- Time to receive an editor rejection after submission: 1 week to 2 months
- Time to receive peer reviews after submission: 3 weeks to 4 months
- Time to receive a final decision after submission: 3 months to 1 year
When delays occur due to the journal's or reviewers' circumstances and if multiple rounds of peer review are required, it can take more than a year to publish a paper. For instance, in my case, the editor sent my paper to three peer reviewers, but one did not respond. This required finding another reviewer extending the peer review process to four months.
Worse, if the paper is rejected after this lengthy process, the entire cycle must be repeated with another journal, doubling the time required. Such an inefficient and time-consuming publishing process can be detrimental to researchers, as similar studies by other groups may get published during this time. I have seen this happen often, and since novelty is one of the most critical aspects of a paper, this can lead to severe consequences for researchers.
The second issue is the shortage of peer reviewers. As mentioned earlier, a submitted paper is typically evaluated by two to three peer reviewers. Whether the paper is accepted or rejected largely depends on these few individuals' opinions. Although reviewers are experts in related fields, and consensus on the paper's quality is often reached, there is still an element of chance involved.
Let me illustrate with an example from my experience. I once submitted a paper to the prestigious Journal A. Despite receiving two major comments and one minor comment, my paper was rejected. I then submitted the same paper to Journal B, which is slightly less prestigious. However, it was rejected again after receiving one rejection and one major comment. Interestingly, the outcome was worse in Journal B despite it being less prominent than Journal A.
This highlights a problem: paper evaluations rely on a small number of experts, and the selection of reviewers is entirely at the discretion of the journal editor. This means there’s an element of luck in whether the paper is approved. In an extreme example, the same paper might be accepted if reviewed by three lenient reviewers but rejected if assigned to three critical ones.
That said, significantly increasing the number of peer reviewers for fairer evaluation isn’t practical. From the journal’s perspective, more reviewers mean more communication and inefficiencies.
The third issue is the lack of incentives in the peer review process, leading to low-quality comments. This varies depending on the peer reviewer. Some reviewers thoroughly understand the paper and provide thoughtful comments and questions. Others, however, do not read the paper carefully, ask about information already included, or give irrelevant criticism and comments, leading to major revisions or rejection. This is unfortunately common and can leave researchers feeling betrayed, as if their efforts have been invalidated.
This stems from the absence of incentives for the peer review process, which makes quality control difficult. When journals receive submissions, editors typically ask university professors or researchers in related fields to review the papers. However, even if these individuals spend time reading, analyzing, and commenting on the papers, they are not rewarded for their efforts. From the perspective of professors or graduate students, peer reviewing is merely an unpaid, burdensome task.
The fourth issue is the lack of transparency in the peer review process. Peer reviews are conducted anonymously to ensure fairness, and the journal editor selects reviewers. However, reviewers can identify the authors of the papers they review. This can lead to biased evaluations, such as giving favorable reviews to papers from friendly researchers or deliberately harsh reviews for papers from competing groups. Such instances are more common than one might expect.
The Illusion of impact factor
The final issue I’d like to address regarding journals is citation counts. How can we evaluate the career and expertise of researchers? Each researcher has unique strengths: some excel at experimental design, others are skilled at identifying research topics, and some can thoroughly investigate overlooked details. However, it is practically impossible to assess every researcher qualitatively. As a result, academia relies on quantitative metrics, represented by a single number, to evaluate researchers—specifically, citation counts and the H-index.
Researchers with higher H-index scores and citation counts for their published papers are generally regarded as more accomplished. For context, the H-index is a metric that evaluates a researcher's productivity and impact. For example, an H-index of 10 means the researcher has at least 10 papers, each cited 10 times or more. Ultimately, citation counts remain the most important metric.
What can researchers do to increase their citation counts? While producing high-quality papers is the fundamental solution, selecting the right research topic is equally critical. The more popular the field of study and the larger the pool of researchers, the more likely it is that citation counts will increase naturally.
(Source: Clarivate)The table above shows the 2024 Journal Impact Factor ranking published by Clarivate. The impact factor (IF) represents the average number of citations a paper in a particular journal receives yearly. For example, if a journal's impact factor is 10, a researcher publishing in that journal can expect their paper to receive approximately 10 citations per year.
Looking at the rankings, it becomes evident that journals with high-impact factors are generally concentrated in certain fields of research. Examples include cancer, medicine, materials, energy, and machine learning. Even within a broader field like chemistry, specific subfields such as batteries and eco-friendly energy tend to have an advantage in citation counts compared to traditional areas like organic chemistry. This indicates a potential risk in academia, where researchers might gravitate toward specific topics due to the heavy reliance on citation counts as a primary evaluation method.
This highlights that metrics like citation counts and impact factors are not universal tools for assessing the quality of researchers or journals. For instance, within the same ACS publisher group, ACS Energy Letters has an impact factor of 19, while JACS has an impact factor of 14.4. However, JACS is considered 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 in, yet its impact factor is 50.5 because it publishes papers on a wide range of topics. In contrast, Nature Medicine, a sister journal focusing on a specific field, has a higher impact factor of 58.7.
"Publish or perish"
Success is born from failure. Progress in any domain requires failure as a stepping stone. The research findings published in academia today are often the result of countless hours and failed attempts. However, in modern scientific circles, almost all papers report only successful results, while the many failures leading up to those successes are left unpublished and discarded. In the competitive world of academia, researchers have little incentive to report failed experiments as they offer no benefit to their careers and are often seen as a waste of time to document.
Inadequate coordination mechanisms
In computer software, open-source projects have revolutionized development by making code publicly accessible and encouraging global contributions, enabling developers to create better software collaboratively. However, the trajectory of the scientific community has moved in the opposite direction.
During the early scientific era, such as the 17th century, scientists prioritized sharing knowledge under natural philosophy and demonstrated open and collaborative attitudes, distancing themselves from rigid authorities. For example, despite their rivalry, Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke exchanged letters to share and critique each other's work, advancing knowledge collectively.
(Issac Newton, letter to Robert Hooke)In contrast, modern science has become much more siloed. Researchers are driven by competition to secure funding and publish in journals with higher impact factors. Unpublished research is often kept confidential, and external sharing is strongly discouraged. Consequently, research labs within the same field naturally view one another as competitors, with few avenues to learn about each other's ongoing work.
Since most research builds incrementally on previous publications, there is a high likelihood that competing labs are conducting very similar studies. In the absence of shared research processes, parallel research on identical topics occurs simultaneously in multiple labs. This creates a highly inefficient and winner-takes-all environment where the lab that publishes results receives all the credit first. It is not uncommon for researchers to find that a similar study has been published just as they were about to complete their work, rendering much of their effort futile.
In the worst-case scenario, even within the same lab, students may withhold experimental materials or research findings from one another, competing internally rather than collaborating. As open-source culture has become a cornerstone of computer science, the modern scientific community must adopt a more open and collaborative culture to serve the greater public good.
How do we fix traditional science?
Researchers are well aware of these issues in the scientific community. While they recognize the problems, these challenges are deeply rooted structural issues that individuals cannot easily resolve. Nevertheless, numerous attempts have been made to address these problems over the years.
Fixing centralized funding
- Fast Grants: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Patrick Collison, the CEO of Stripe, identified inefficiencies in traditional funding processes and launched the Fast Grants program, raising $50M to support hundreds of projects. Grant decisions were made within 14 days, with funding amounts ranging from $10k to $500k—sizable amounts for researchers.
- Renaissance Philanthropy: Founded by Tom Kalil, a former science and technology policy advisor under Presidents Clinton and Obama, this nonprofit advisory organization connects donors with high-impact science and technology initiatives. Supported by Eric and Wendy Schmidt, it resembles the patronage system once prevalent among European scientists.
- hhmi: The Howard Hughes Medical Institute employs a unique funding model by supporting individual researchers rather than specific projects. Providing long-term funding alleviates the pressure for short-term results and allows researchers to focus on sustained investigations.
- experiment.com: This online crowdfunding platform enables researchers to introduce their work to the public and raise necessary funds from individual contributors.
Fixing academic journals
- PLOS ONE: PLOS ONE is an open-access scientific journal where anyone can freely read, download, and share articles. It evaluates papers based on scientific validity rather than impact and is well-known for publishing negative, null, or inconclusive results. Its streamlined publishing process helps researchers quickly disseminate findings. However, PLOS ONE charges researchers $1k–5k in article processing fees.
- arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, PsyArXiv, SocArXiv: These preprint servers allow researchers to share papers' drafts before formal publication in journals. They enable rapid dissemination of research findings, claim priority over specific topics, and offer opportunities for community feedback and collaboration, all while providing free access to papers for readers.
- Sci-hub: Founded by Kazakh computer programmer Alexandra Asanovna Elbakyan, Sci-hub provides free access to paywalled papers. Although illegal in most jurisdictions and subject to lawsuits from publishers like Elsevier, it has garnered praise for promoting free access to academic content while being criticized for violating the law.
Fixing research collaboration
- ResearchGate: A professional networking platform for researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators.
- CERN: CERN, a nonprofit organization for particle physics research, conducts large-scale experiments that are difficult for individual labs to perform. It brings together researchers from multiple countries, with funding contributions based on participating nations’ GDPs.
DeSci: The New Wave
While the above efforts have made some progress in addressing the challenges of modern science, they have not created the transformative impact necessary to revolutionize the field. Recently, with the rise of blockchain technology, a new concept called decentralized science (DeSci) has gained attention as a potential solution to these structural issues. But what exactly is DeSci, and can it truly revolutionize the modern scientific ecosystem?
DeSci refers to efforts to make scientific knowledge a public good by improving funding, research, peer review, and sharing of research outcomes within the scientific community. It strives for a system that is more efficient, fair, transparent, and accessible to everyone. Blockchain technology plays a central role in achieving these goals by leveraging the following features:
- Transparency: Except in privacy networks, blockchain networks are inherently transparent, allowing anyone to view transactions. This characteristic can enhance the transparency of project funding and peer review processes.
- Ownership: Blockchain assets are protected by private keys, making it easy to claim ownership. This feature enables researchers to monetize their data or assert intellectual property (IP) rights for funded research.
- Incentive Scheme: Incentives are at the core of blockchain networks. To encourage collaboration and active engagement, token incentives can be used to reward participants in various research processes.
- Smart Contracts: Deployed on neutral networks, smart contracts execute actions as defined in their code. They can be used to establish and automate interaction logic among participants transparently.
Why the Ethereum ecosystem is ideal for DeSci
Unlike applications in DeFi, gaming, or AI, DeSci projects are predominantly concentrated within the Ethereum ecosystem. This trend can be attributed to the following reasons:
- Credible neutrality: Ethereum is the most neutral network among smart contract platforms. Given the nature of DeSci, where significant funding flows (e.g., research funding) are involved, values like decentralization, fairness, censorship resistance, and trustworthiness are essential. This makes Ethereum the optimal network for building DeSci projects.
- Network effects: Ethereum boasts the largest user base and liquidity among smart contract networks. DeSci, a relatively niche sector compared to other applications, risks fragmentation if projects are spread across multiple networks. Such fragmentation could hinder project management due to liquidity and ecosystem-related challenges. Most DeSci projects are built on its network to leverage Ethereum's strong network effect.
- Robust infrastructure: Few DeSci projects are built entirely from scratch. Instead, many utilize existing frameworks like Molecule to accelerate development. Since most DeSci infrastructure tools are Ethereum-based, most projects in this space also operate on Ethereum.
For these reasons, the DeSci projects introduced in this discussion predominantly belong to the Ethereum ecosystem. Let’s now explore some representative projects within each sector of DeSci.
Potential DeSci applications
As the name suggests, DeSci can be applied to various aspects of scientific research. ResearchHub categorizes potential applications of DeSci into the following five areas:
- Research DAOs: These are decentralized autonomous organizations focused on specific research topics. Using blockchain technology, they manage research planning, funding, governance voting, and project administration transparently.
- Publishing: Blockchain can decentralize and revolutionize the publishing process. Research papers, data, and code can be permanently recorded on the blockchain to ensure trustworthiness, allow free access to all, and incentivize peer reviewers with tokens, among other improvements.
- Funding & IP: Researchers can easily secure funding from a global audience through blockchain networks. Additionally, by tokenizing research projects, token holders can participate in decision-making regarding the project's direction or share in future IP revenue.
- Data: Blockchain enables secure, transparent storage, management, and research data sharing.
- Infrastructure: This includes governance tools, storage solutions, community platforms, and identity systems that can be readily integrated into DeSci projects.
The best way to understand DeSci is to explore its ecosystem projects and examine how they address structural issues in modern science. Let’s look closely at some of the prominent projects within the DeSci ecosystem.
An overview of the DeSci ecosystem
(Source: ResearchHub)Funding & IP
Molecule
(Source: Molecule)Molecule is a funding and tokenization platform for biopharma intellectual property. Researchers can secure funding from numerous individuals through blockchain, tokenize the project's IP, and funders can claim IP Tokens proportional to their contributions.
Catalyst, Molecule's decentralized fundraising platform, connects researchers and funders. Researchers prepare necessary documentation and project plans to propose their projects on the platform. Funders review these proposals and provide ETH to the projects they support. Once funding is completed, IP-NFTs and IP Tokens are issued, which funders can then claim.
(Source: Molecule)An IP NFT represents a tokenized version of project IP on-chain, combining two legal agreements into a smart contract. The first legal agreement is the Research Agreement, signed between researchers and funders. It includes clauses on research scope, deliverables, schedule, budget, confidentiality, IP and data ownership, publication, results disclosure, licensing, and patent conditions. The second legal agreement is the Assignment Agreement, which transfers the Research Agreement to the IP NFT owner, ensuring that rights held by the current IP NFT owner can be transferred to a new owner.
IP Tokens represent fractional governance rights over the IP. Token holders can participate in key research decisions and access exclusive information. Although IP Tokens do not guarantee revenue sharing from the research, depending on the IP owner, profits from future commercialization may be distributed to IP Token holders.
(Source: Molecule)The price of IP Tokens is determined by the Catalyst Bonding Curve, which reflects the relationship between the token’s supply and price. As more tokens are issued, their price increases. This incentivizes early contributions by allowing early funders to acquire tokens at a lower cost.
Here are some examples of successful funding cases through Molecule:
- Fang Laboratory at the University of Oslo: Fang Lab researches aging and Alzheimer’s disease. The lab is supported by VitaDAO through Molecule’s IP-NFT framework to identify and characterize new drug candidates for mitophagy activation, which positively impacts Alzheimer’s disease research.
- Artan Bio: Artan Bio focuses on tRNA-related research. It received $91,300 in funding from the VitaDAO community through Molecule’s IP-NFT framework.
Bio Protocol
(Source: Bio.xyz)Bio.xyz is a curation and liquidity protocol for DeSci that is comparable to an incubator supporting BioDAOs. The goals of Bio.xyz are:
- Curation, creation, and acceleration of new BioDAOs funding science on-chain.
- Perpetual funding and liquidity for BioDAOs and on-chain biotech assets.
- Standardization of BioDAO frameworks, tokenomics, and data/product suites.
- Generation and commercialization of scientific IP and data.
BIO token holders vote on which new BioDAOs will join the ecosystem. Once a BioDAO is approved to join the BIO ecosystem, token holders who voted for it can participate in the initial private token auction. This process resembles a whitelisted pre-seed round.
The governance tokens of the approved BioDAO are paired with BIO tokens and added to a liquidity pool, eliminating the need for BioDAOs to worry about liquidity for their governance tokens (e.g., VITA/BIO). Additionally, Bio.xyz runs the bio/acc rewards program, providing BIO token incentives to BioDAOs as they achieve key milestones.
That’s not all. BIO tokens act as a meta-governance token for multiple BioDAOs within the ecosystem. This enables BIO holders to participate in the governance of various BioDAOs. Furthermore, the BIO network provides incubated BioDAOs with a $100,000 grant and acquires 6.9% of the BioDAO’s token supply for the treasury. This increases the protocol's AUM (Assets Under Management) and accrues value to BIO tokens.
Bio.xyz leverages Molecule’s IP NFT and IP Tokens framework for managing and owning IP. For instance, VitaDAO has successfully issued IP Tokens such as VitaRNA and VITA-FAST within the Bio ecosystem. Below is a list of Research DAOs currently being incubated through Bio.xyz, which will be discussed in detail in the next section:
- Cerebrum DAO: Focuses on preventing the onset of neurodegeneration.
- PsyDAO: Dedicates to conscious evolution through safe, accessible psychedelic experiences.
- cryoDAO: Contributes to cryopreservation research projects.
- AthenaDAO: Works to advance women’s health research.
- ValleyDAO: Supports synthetic biology research.
- HairDAO: Collaborates to develop new treatments for hair loss.
- VitaDAO: Focuses on human lifespan.
In summary, Bio.xyz curates BioDAOs and provides token frameworks, liquidity services, grants, and incubation support. When the IPs of BioDAOs within the ecosystem successfully commercialize, the value of Bio.xyz's treasury increases, creating a virtuous cycle.
Research DAOs
VitaDAO
Regarding the most well-known Research DAO, VitaDAO often comes to mind first. Its fame stems from being an early DeSci project and receiving lead investment from Pfizer Ventures in 2023. VitaDAO funds projects focused on longevity and aging research, having supported over 24 projects with more than $4.2M in funding. In return for funding, VitaDAO acquires IP NFTs or equity in companies, utilizing Molecule.xyz's framework for the IP NFTs.
VitaDAO leverages blockchain transparency by making its treasury publicly accessible. The treasury’s value amounts to approximately $44M, including around $2.3M in equities and $29M in tokenized IP, among other assets. VITA token holders participate in governance votes to shape the DAO’s direction and gain access to various healthcare services.
The most notable projects funded by VitaDAO are VitaRNA and VITA-FAST. Both projects’ IPs have been tokenized and are actively traded, with the market cap of VITARNA at approximately $13M and VITA-FAST at $24M. Both projects hold regular calls with VitaDAO to update their progress.
- VitaRNA: VitaRNA is an IP Token project led by the biotechnology company Artan Bio. Successfully funded in June 2023, the project issued an IP NFT, fractionalized into IP Tokens in January 2024. Their innovative research focuses on suppressing arginine nonsense mutations, particularly the CGA codon, which is critical in proteins associated with DNA damage, neurodegeneration, and tumor suppression.
- VITA-FAST: VITA-FAST is an IP Token project from the Viktor Korolchuk Lab at Newcastle University. The project focuses on discovering novel autophagy activators. Autophagy, a cellular process whose decline contributes to biological aging, is stimulated to explore therapeutic approaches that combat aging and related diseases, ultimately aiming to enhance human healthspan.
HairDAO
HairDAO is an open-source R&D network where patients and researchers collaborate to develop treatments for hair loss. According to Scandinavian Biolabs, hair loss affects 85% of men and 50% of women in their lifetime. However, only treatments like Minoxidil, Finasteride, and Dutasteride exist on the market. Notably, Minoxidil was FDA-approved in 1988 and Finasteride in 1997.
Even these approved treatments provide limited effects, such as slowing or temporarily halting hair loss, rather than offering a cure. Developing hair loss treatments is slow for several reasons:
- Complex causes: Hair loss is caused by multiple factors, including genetics, hormonal changes, and immune responses, making it challenging to develop effective, targeted treatments.
- High development costs: Drug development requires substantial time and investment, but because hair loss is non-life-threatening, it often ranks lower in research funding priorities.
HairDAO rewards patients with HAIR governance tokens for sharing their treatment experiences and data through the app. Holders of HAIR tokens can participate in DAO governance votes, enjoy discounts on HairDAO shampoo products, and stake tokens to access confidential research data faster.
Notable mentions
- CryoDAO: CryoDAO focuses on cryopreservation research, with a treasury exceeding $7M and funding for five projects. CRYO token holders can participate in governance votes and may receive early or exclusive access to breakthroughs and data from funded research.
- ValleyDAO: ValleyDAO aims to address climate challenges by funding synthetic biology research. Synthetic biology seeks to sustainably synthesize nutrients, fuels, and medicines using biological organisms, a critical technology for combating climate change. ValleyDAO has funded several projects, including research by Prof. Rodrigo Ledesma-Amaro at Imperial College London.
- CerebrumDAO: CerebrumDAO focuses on brain health research, particularly Alzheimer’s prevention. Its Snapshot page showcases numerous proposals from projects seeking funding. Decision-making is decentralized and conducted through DAO member votes.
Publishing
ResearchHub
(Source: ResearchHub)ResearchHub is the leading DeSci publishing platform, aiming to become the "GitHub for science." Founded by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Patrick Joyce, ResearchHub successfully raised $5M in a Series A round in June 2023, led by Open Source Software Capital.
ResearchHub is a tool for open publication and discussion of scientific research, incentivizing researchers to publish, peer review, and curate through its native RSC tokens. Its key features include:
Grants
(Source: ResearchHub)Using RSC tokens, users can create grants to request specific tasks from other ResearchHub users. Grant types include:
- Peer Review: Request reviews for manuscripts.
- Answer to Question: Request answers to specific questions.
Funding
(Source: ResearchHub)In the Funding tab, researchers can upload research proposals and receive funding from users in RSC tokens.
Journals
(Source: ResearchHub)The Journals section archives papers from peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers. Users can browse literature and engage in discussions. However, many peer-reviewed papers are behind paywalls, and users can only access summaries written by others.
Hubs
(Source: ResearchHub)Hubs archive preprint papers categorized by field. This section contains all papers in open access, allowing anyone to read the full content and engage in discussions.
Lab Notebook
The Lab Notebook is a collaborative online workspace where multiple users can co-author papers. Like Google Docs or Notion, this feature allows seamless publishing directly on ResearchHub.
RH Journal
(Source: ResearchHub)RH Journal is ResearchHub's in-house journal. It boasts an efficient peer-review process that is completed within 14 days and decisions made within 21 days. Additionally, it incorporates an incentive system for peer reviewers, addressing the misaligned incentive issues common in traditional peer-review systems.
RSC Token
(Source: ResearchHub)RSC tokens are ERC-20 tokens used within the ResearchHub ecosystem, with a total supply of 1 billion. RSC tokens drive engagement and support ResearchHub’s vision of becoming a fully decentralized open platform. Their utilities include:
- Governance voting
- Tipping other users
- Bounty programs
- Incentives for peer reviewers
- Rewards for curating research papers
ScieNFT
ScieNFT is a decentralized preprint server where researchers can publish their work as NFTs. The format of the publication can range from simple figures and ideas to datasets, artistic works, methods, and even negative results. Preprint data is stored using decentralized storage solutions like IPFS and Filecoin, while NFTs are uploaded to the Avalanche C-Chain.
While using NFTs to identify and track ownership of work is an advantage, a notable drawback is the unclear benefits of purchasing these NFTs. Additionally, the marketplace lacks effective curation.
deScier
(Source: deScier)deScier is a decentralized science journal platform. Like publishers like Elsevier or Springer Nature, which manage multiple journals under their umbrella, deScier also hosts various journals. Copyright for all papers remains 100% with the researchers, and peer review is part of the process. However, as noted below, a significant limitation is the low number of papers published in the journals and the slow rate of uploads.
Data infrastructure
Data Lake
Data Lake’s software enables researchers to integrate various user recruitment channels, track their effectiveness, manage consents, and conduct preselection surveys while giving users control over their data. Researchers can share and easily manage patient consent for data use among third parties. Data Lake uses the Data Lake Chain, an L3 network based on Arbitrum Orbit, to manage patient consent.
Welshare Health
(Source: Welshare Health)In traditional medical research, the most significant bottlenecks are delays in recruiting clinical trial participants and the lack of patients. Additionally, while patient medical data is valuable, it poses risks of misuse. Welshare aims to address these challenges using Web3 technology.
Patients can securely manage their data, monetize it to earn income, and access personalized healthcare services. Conversely, medical researchers benefit from easier access to diverse datasets, facilitating their research.
Through a Base Network-based application, users can selectively provide data to earn in-app reward points, which can later be converted into crypto or fiat currency.
Hippocrat
Hippocrat is a decentralized healthcare 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 provides healthcare consultations using a medical database, AI technology, and assistance from healthcare professionals. Throughout this process, patient data is securely stored on the blockchain.
5.6 DeSci Infrastructure
5.6.1 Ceramic
Ceramic is a decentralized event streaming protocol that allows developers to create decentralized databases, distributed compute pipelines, authenticated data feeds, and more. These features make it well-suited for DeSci projects, enabling them to utilize Ceramic as a decentralized database:
- Data on the Ceramic network is permissionlessly accessible, allowing researchers to share and collaborate on data.
- Actions such as research papers, citations, and reviews on the Ceramic network are represented as “Ceramic streams.” Individual streams can only be modified by their originating author account, ensuring IP provenance.
- Ceramic also provides infrastructure for verifiable claims, enabling DeSci projects to adopt its reputation infrastructure.
bloXberg
bloXberg is a blockchain infrastructure established under the leadership of the Max Planck Digital Library in Germany, with participation from renowned research institutions such as ETH Zurich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and the IT University of Copenhagen.
bloXberg is designed to innovate various processes in scientific research, such as research data management, peer review, and intellectual property protection. Utilizing blockchain decentralizes these processes, enhancing transparency and efficiency in research. Researchers can securely share and collaborate on research data using the blockchain.
Is DeSci Really a Silver Bullet?
We’ve explored the structural issues in modern science and how DeSci aims to address them. But hold on a second. Can DeSci truly revolutionize the scientific community and play a central role, as the crypto community claims? I don’t believe so. However, I do think DeSci has the potential to play a supportive role in certain areas.
What Blockchain Can and Cannot Fix
Blockchain isn’t magic. It cannot solve every problem. We must clearly distinguish what blockchain can address and cannot.
Funding
DeSci is expected to excel in funding scenarios that meet the following conditions:
- Small-scale grants
- Research with potential for commercialization
The scale of funding in the scientific community varies widely, ranging from tens of thousands to millions or even tens of millions of dollars. For large-scale projects requiring significant capital, centralized funding from governments or corporations is inevitable. However, smaller projects can feasibly secure funding through DeSci platforms.
From the perspective of researchers conducting small-scale projects, the burden of extensive paperwork and lengthy funding review processes can be overwhelming. In this context, DeSci funding platforms, which provide funding quickly and efficiently, are highly appealing.
That said, to increase the likelihood of a research project receiving funding from the public through a DeSci platform, there must be a reasonable prospect of commercialization, such as through patents or technology transfer. This provides an incentive for the public to invest in the project. However, most modern scientific research is not geared toward commercialization but is instead supported to enhance national or corporate technological competitiveness.
In summary, fields well-suited for funding on DeSci platforms include biotech, healthcare, and pharmaceuticals. The focus of most current DeSci projects on these areas aligns with this reasoning. These fields have a high likelihood of commercialization if the research succeeds. Moreover, while significant funding is required for eventual commercialization, the initial phases of research typically demand less funding than other fields, making DeSci platforms a favorable option for raising capital.
I question whether DeSci can enable long-term research. While a small number of researchers might be supported by altruistic and voluntary funders to pursue long-term studies, this culture is unlikely to spread widely throughout the scientific community. Even with DeSci platforms leveraging blockchain, no inherent causal link suggests they can sustain long-term funding. If one were to seek a connection between blockchain and long-term research deliberately, one possible consideration could be milestone-based funding through smart contracts.
Journals
Ideally, the area where DeSci could bring the most innovation is academic journals. Through smart contracts and token incentives, DeSci can potentially restructure the profit model dominated by journals into one centered around researchers. However, in reality, this will be challenging.
The most critical factor for researchers building their careers is publishing papers. In academia, a researcher’s capabilities are primarily judged by the journals they publish in, their citation counts, and their h-index. Human nature inherently leans on authority—a fact unchanged from prehistoric times to the present. For example, an unknown researcher can become a star overnight by publishing in top-tier journals like Nature, Science, or Cell.
While qualitative evaluations of researchers' skills would be ideal, such evaluations rely heavily on peer references, making quantitative assessments almost unavoidable. Because of this, journals hold immense power. Despite monopolizing the profit model, researchers have no choice but to comply. For DeSci journals to gain more influence, they must build authority, but achieving the reputation that traditional journals have accumulated over a century through token incentives alone is highly challenging.
While DeSci may not completely transform the journal landscape, it can undoubtedly contribute to specific areas, such as peer review and negative results.
As previously mentioned, peer reviewers currently receive little to no incentives, which lowers the quality and efficiency of peer reviews. Providing token incentives to reviewers could improve review quality and elevate the journal’s standards.
Additionally, token incentives could bootstrap a journal network dedicated solely to publishing negative results. Since reputation is less critical for journals exclusively publishing negative results, the combination of token rewards would incentivize researchers to publish their findings in such journals.
Collaboration
In my view, blockchain is unlikely to address the fierce competition in modern science significantly. Unlike in the past, the number of researchers today is much greater, and every achievement directly impacts career progression, making competition inevitable. It is unrealistic to expect blockchain to resolve overall collaboration challenges in the scientific community.
On the other hand, within small groups like research DAOs, blockchain can effectively promote collaboration. Researchers in DAOs align incentives through tokens, share a common vision, and log achievements on the blockchain via timestamps to gain recognition. I hope to see an increase in the number and activity of research DAOs not just in the biotech field but across other disciplines.
Final thoughts: DeSci needs a Bitcoin moment
The modern scientific community faces numerous structural challenges, and DeSci offers a compelling narrative for addressing them. While DeSci may not revolutionize the entire scientific ecosystem, it can gradually expand through researchers and users who find value in it. Eventually, we may see a balance between TradSci and DeSci. Just as Bitcoin, once dismissed as a toy for computer geeks, now has major traditional financial institutions entering the market, I hope DeSci will similarly gain long-term recognition and achieve its "Bitcoin moment."
Disclaimer: The content provided by 2077 Research is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of 2077 Research or its affiliates. Readers should conduct their own research and exercise independent judgment when interpreting the information presented.