I have a friend who spent a full seven months writing a research grant application.
Seven months! That's longer than many people spend preparing for a wedding, and the pressure must be even greater. She was originally a talented cancer treatment researcher but spent more energy on fundraising than on actual research work.
The entire system is completely upside down. Research requires funding, but to get funding, one must first prove that the research will succeed— but how can one prove it will succeed without conducting the research?
On the contrary, some situations are simply ridiculous: a YouTuber launched a crowdfunding campaign for 'grains of rice' and raised $100,000 in a weekend. This is ironically stark in comparison.
Today, a movement called DeSci (Decentralized Science) is emerging in the crypto field, attempting to innovate the research funding model using cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
Don't rush to dismiss this; you might change your mind after hearing more. This approach might actually work.
How bad is the current system?
The traditional research funding process is as follows: researchers write detailed research proposals, submit them to government agencies or companies, and then wait 6 to 18 months to receive a response. Most applications are rejected, and even if approved, they come with a bunch of restrictions, leading researchers to spend more time on paperwork than on actual research.
The core of this process is 'reducing risk'. It sounds reasonable, but the problem is that breakthrough discoveries are inherently risky. From antibiotics to the internet, the most significant scientific breakthroughs were often 'niche directions' that the review committees would not fund initially.
There is also the issue of publishing papers: researchers must publish results in expensive academic journals, which charge exorbitant fees and place research results behind paywalls. The result is that research funded by taxpayers is not accessible to the taxpayers themselves.
Ultimately, excellent researchers waste years in bureaucratic processes instead of solving real problems. Important research gets delayed or even stalled, while the public that supports most basic research through taxes is excluded from the research outcomes they paid for.
DeSci Debuts
DeSci (Decentralized Science) essentially applies the concept of cryptocurrency to the research field: researchers no longer need to 'beg' for funds from review committees; instead, they can crowdfund directly from those interested in their research. Research results are no longer locked behind paywalls but stored on public blockchains for anyone to access.
When Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin and former Binance CEO Zhao Changpeng began discussing this concept in public, DeSci gained widespread attention. It is important to note that when big players in the crypto field focus on something, it often means that the relevant infrastructure is ready to be implemented.
The specific operation model is as follows: researchers issue tokens representing their projects, people fund the research by purchasing tokens, and if the research succeeds and generates profitable results, token holders can share in the profits.
This is no longer a theoretical fantasy; many companies are building tangible infrastructure for decentralized science.
Take a key player in this field, BIO Protocol, as an example; it has received support from Binance Labs and has strong financial backing. BIO has created what is called 'BioDAOs', essentially a community for crowdfunding biotechnology research. It is no longer a few wealthy individuals deciding which cancer therapies are worth developing; instead, thousands of people can pool their funds and vote on the research direction.
There are also Molecule and VitaDAO, which focus on longevity research and tokenize intellectual property: when researchers achieve certain results, ownership is distributed among all funders. Currently, they are supporting projects including aging research at Newcastle University and longevity research at the University of Copenhagen.
The scale of funding is also continuously growing. These platforms have handled millions of dollars in research funding, with some individual projects raising hundreds of thousands of dollars through token sales. Although this still seems small compared to traditional funding, the growth rate is astonishing.
The deeper I think about DeSci, the more I feel its significance is extraordinary. Scientific research is inherently a collaborative process, where researchers build on the achievements of others, share data, and conduct peer reviews, while blockchain technology is specifically designed for this kind of transparent collaboration.
The traditional funding system has created a distorted incentive mechanism: researchers must exaggerate the certainty of their research to secure funding, which in turn hinders exploration of 'uncertain but potentially groundbreaking' directions. DeSci turns this around. It rewards researchers for sharing all data, including failed experiments, as this may help others avoid detours.
Another benefit is that it allows global researchers to participate. Researchers in Nigeria with great ideas can raise funds from around the world without relying on Western universities or funding agencies. This is significant for the democratization of scientific progress.
Moreover, transparency is inherent; when research is funded through blockchain tokens, everyone can clearly see where the funds are going, eliminating the need to guess whether the funding is being used for actual research or administrative expenses.
Risks and Challenges
Of course, risks cannot be ignored. The biggest issue lies in quality control. Although traditional peer review has its flaws, it can indeed filter out some poor-quality research. In a decentralized system, how can we avoid funding research projects that are clearly unreliable?
Volatility is also a real issue. What if a five-year cancer research project is funded by cryptocurrency and the token price drops by 90%? Long-term research requires stable financial support.
Regulatory uncertainty also exists. Many countries have complex regulations regarding medical research, drug development, and intellectual property, and it is still unclear how tokenized research will fit into the existing legal framework.
To be honest, most scientists are not 'natives' of the crypto field, and asking them to suddenly become experts in token economics and DAO governance is quite unreasonable.
Summary
Despite the many issues, the momentum of DeSci's development cannot be ignored. The relevant infrastructure is improving, funding is increasing, while the traditional research funding system is getting worse. The efficiency gap is obvious when funding agencies take 18 months to approve emergency research funding, while crypto crowdfunding can be completed in days.
Early projects are largely concentrated in biotechnology and longevity research, which makes sense because these fields have clear commercial potential: if the funded research leads to new drugs, token holders can share in the profits. But this model is actually applicable to any research that can ultimately create value.
I believe we are at the early stages of a significant endeavor. It's not that cryptocurrency can replace traditional research funding overnight, but it provides a faster, more transparent new pathway for global researchers to access funding.
The true test of DeSci lies in whether it can produce actual scientific breakthroughs, rather than just raising funds. However, given the current state of traditional research funding, trying new methods is always worthwhile.
This is just the beginning. The DeSci field is developing rapidly, with new projects emerging continuously, and real money is flowing into actual research. The intersection of cryptocurrency and research funding is giving rise to opportunities that did not exist a year ago. I have a friend who spent a full seven months writing a research grant application.
Seven months! That's longer than many people spend preparing for a wedding, and the pressure must be even greater. She was originally a talented cancer treatment researcher but spent more energy on fundraising than on actual research work.
The entire system is completely upside down. Research requires funding, but to get funding, one must first prove that the research will succeed— but how can one prove it will succeed without conducting the research?
On the other hand, some situations are simply ridiculous: a YouTuber launched a crowdfunding campaign for 'grains of rice' and raised $100,000 in a weekend. This is ironically stark in comparison.
Today, a movement called DeSci (Decentralized Science) is emerging in the crypto field, attempting to innovate the research funding model using cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
Don't rush to dismiss this; you might change your mind after hearing more. This approach might actually work.
How bad is the current system?
The traditional research funding process is as follows: researchers write detailed research proposals, submit them to government agencies or companies, and then wait 6 to 18 months to receive a response. Most applications are rejected, and even if approved, they come with a bunch of restrictions, leading researchers to spend more time on paperwork than on actual research.
The core of this process is 'reducing risk'. It sounds reasonable, but the problem is that breakthrough discoveries are inherently risky. From antibiotics to the internet, the most significant scientific breakthroughs were often 'niche directions' that the review committees would not fund initially.
There is also the issue of publishing papers: researchers must publish results in expensive academic journals, which charge exorbitant fees and place research results behind paywalls. The result is that research funded by taxpayers is not accessible to the taxpayers themselves.
Ultimately, excellent researchers waste years in bureaucratic processes instead of solving real problems. Important research gets delayed or even stalled, while the public that supports most basic research through taxes is excluded from the research outcomes they paid for.
DeSci Debuts
DeSci (Decentralized Science) essentially applies the concept of cryptocurrency to the research field: researchers no longer need to 'beg' for funds from review committees; instead, they can crowdfund directly from those interested in their research. Research results are no longer locked behind paywalls but stored on public blockchains for anyone to access.
When Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin and former Binance CEO Zhao Changpeng began discussing this concept in public, DeSci gained widespread attention. It is important to note that when big players in the crypto field focus on something, it often means that the relevant infrastructure is ready to be implemented.
The specific operation model is as follows: researchers issue tokens representing their projects, people fund the research by purchasing tokens, and if the research succeeds and generates profitable results, token holders can share in the profits.
This is no longer a theoretical fantasy; many companies are building tangible infrastructure for decentralized science.
Take a key player in this field, BIO Protocol, as an example; it has received support from Binance Labs and has strong financial backing. BIO has created what is called 'BioDAOs', essentially a community for crowdfunding biotechnology research. It is no longer a few wealthy individuals deciding which cancer therapies are worth developing; instead, thousands of people can pool their funds and vote on the research direction.
There are also Molecule and VitaDAO, which focus on longevity research and tokenize intellectual property: when researchers achieve certain results, ownership is distributed among all funders. Currently, they are supporting projects including aging research at Newcastle University and longevity research at the University of Copenhagen.
The scale of funding is also continuously growing. These platforms have handled millions of dollars in research funding, with some individual projects raising hundreds of thousands of dollars through token sales. Although this still seems small compared to traditional funding, the growth rate is astonishing.
The deeper I think about DeSci, the more I feel its significance is extraordinary. Scientific research is inherently a collaborative process, where researchers build on the achievements of others, share data, and conduct peer reviews, while blockchain technology is specifically designed for this kind of transparent collaboration.
The traditional funding system has created a distorted incentive mechanism: researchers must exaggerate the certainty of their research to secure funding, which in turn hinders exploration of 'uncertain but potentially groundbreaking' directions. DeSci turns this around. It rewards researchers for sharing all data, including failed experiments, as this may help others avoid detours.
Another benefit is that it allows global researchers to participate. Researchers in Nigeria with great ideas can raise funds from around the world without relying on Western universities or funding agencies. This is significant for the democratization of scientific progress.
Moreover, transparency is inherent; when research is funded through blockchain tokens, everyone can clearly see where the funds are going, eliminating the need to guess whether the funding is being used for actual research or administrative expenses.
Risks and Challenges
Of course, risks cannot be ignored. The biggest issue lies in quality control. Although traditional peer review has its flaws, it can indeed filter out some poor-quality research. In a decentralized system, how can we avoid funding research projects that are clearly unreliable?
Volatility is also a real issue. What if a five-year cancer research project is funded by cryptocurrency and the token price drops by 90%? Long-term research requires stable financial support.
Regulatory uncertainty also exists. Many countries have complex regulations regarding medical research, drug development, and intellectual property, and it is still unclear how tokenized research will fit into the existing legal framework.
To be honest, most scientists are not 'natives' of the crypto field, and asking them to suddenly become experts in token economics and DAO governance is quite unreasonable.
Summary
Despite the many issues, the momentum of DeSci's development cannot be ignored. The relevant infrastructure is improving, funding is increasing, while the traditional research funding system is getting worse. The efficiency gap is obvious when funding agencies take 18 months to approve emergency research funding, while crypto crowdfunding can be completed in days.
Early projects are largely concentrated in biotechnology and longevity research, which makes sense because these fields have clear commercial potential: if the funded research leads to new drugs, token holders can share in the profits. But this model is actually applicable to any research that can ultimately create value.
I believe we are at the early stages of a significant endeavor. It's not that cryptocurrency can replace traditional research funding overnight, but it provides a faster, more transparent new pathway for global researchers to access funding.
The true test of DeSci lies in whether it can produce actual scientific breakthroughs, rather than just raising funds. However, given the current state of traditional research funding, trying new methods is always worthwhile.
This is just the beginning. The DeSci field is developing rapidly, with new projects emerging continuously, and real money is flowing into actual research. The intersection of cryptocurrency and research funding is giving rise to opportunities that did not exist a year ago.
