How can the DeSci track break through?
I didn't expect the nationwide enthusiasm for DeSci to last less than 5 months, and now it has returned to a small circle. From the perspective of technology transfer in industry-academia-research, the development of the DeSci track is difficult mainly for two reasons:
1. Scientists have a hard time becoming good founders.
In traditional investment fields, scientist founders are a red flag; only a very few succeed because these types of tech projects are likely to have the following characteristics:
1) Scientists run companies like research groups: they do not think about issues from the perspective of capital efficiency, lack focus, and project progress is slow.
2) Product selection lacks clear logic: they basically take previous research group's results for clinical transformation, which can quickly enter the IND-enabling stage, but the company's product selection is almost illogical, without the concept of a domain moat.
3) Treat investors as objects: those with industry background and experience tend to be friendly to investors, willing to share equity and do BD profit sharing, while scientists often think of investors as people who use their results to make money. If they have money in the account, they lack crisis awareness and only care about whether the company survives, ignoring long-term company development.
4) Lack of grasp on long-term financing rhythm: a strange phenomenon I've observed before is that professors from top universities generally allocate around 200 million for the first round of funding, as if the valuation of their company’s first round is related to face and status, leading to high valuations. However, overvaluation affects the company's subsequent financing rhythm.
In an environment lacking professional managers, scientific research transformation still requires investors/industry players to get involved; otherwise, it is really hard for scientists to become good founders.
The above are the dilemmas in the traditional tech field. In the crypto space, the accelerated business lifecycle makes it even more hellish for scientists with no experience in business, not to mention that the crypto space with token models values operation, market, and breakthrough capabilities even more.
I have seen too many overseas DeSci founders who do not understand business, let alone grasp the consensus gameplay in the crypto space. At the same time, their high educational background amplifies their arrogance towards the community and market, and most need to be educated by the market.
2. The cognitive mismatch problem between project parties and track players.
DeSci's popularity is far behind the initial feasts of DeFi and NFT. Looking back, the ecosystem of Bitcoin had nearly a year of nationwide enthusiasm, with SocialFi represented by FriendTech and Farcaster having a nearly year-long burst of popularity. If it were not for@CZ @Yi He Vitalik personally stepping in to support and coinciding with a bullish market wave, the track would have been unsustainable.
The NFT PFP track once went through a phase where projects led by artist founders were criticized by the market. In reality, science is also a creative field, and both scientists and artists share a nihilistic attribute in personality (source of creativity). At the same time, they also lack self-funding capabilities. If artists have too much say, the project lifecycle will be extremely short, and the same goes for DeSci.
Players find it hard to sustain when they encounter project parties with less understanding than themselves; they will only engage in short-term waves, which is the reality.
To solve the above two problems, the DeSci track must have vitality. I hope Jane, the boss of yzilabs, has sharper vision when investing in DeSci and BioTech.
3. Narrative Upgrade, From DeSci to DeSAI
The traditional DeSci field currently has low market acceptance. The way to break through is to leverage the global narrative trend of AI to fuel the DeSci track. In the Web2 field, AI4Sci (AI for Science) is the hottest direction for scientific research and industrial upgrading transformation. Upgrading the DeSci field with AI's multidimensional and intelligent approach is an urgent issue to be resolved. For details, please refer to: DeSci to DeSAI on Binance Live. In the live broadcast, I classified the traditional DeSci field into scientific problem types and technology transfer types. Even though the heat of DeSci has not yet risen, I still believe in the value of this new narrative and its necessity. The AI Agent track has also seen its valuation killed due to the unexpected rise of DeepSeek during the Year of the Snake, which is caused by lowered expectations for technological iteration. However, DeAI/CryptoAI still has its advantages in pioneering experiments, and embracing change is one of the spirits of the crypto community.
