Revisiting DeSci

Recently, some readers have left messages asking about DeSci-related questions.

I remember the last time I shared my thoughts on DeSci was last year. Since then, although I haven't shared my views on this track in my articles, I have continued to pay attention to it.

When I first shared my views on the DeSci track, I wrote a point (the gist is):

Projects initiated through fundraising in this field are different from those in other tracks; they take time to see results, and it may be quite slow to observe actual outcomes. Generally speaking, it is not easy to see significant effects within two years. Such projects may not easily generate hype or make the track popular.

Over this period, we have seen the results; those DeSci projects that were booming last year are now basically in a lukewarm state.

Looking at the projects released in the current DeSci ecosystem, there are basically two characteristics:

First, they are primarily focused on biological/medical technology;

Second, these projects tend to lean towards the scientific field.

Both of these characteristics have a considerable impact on the development of the entire ecosystem.

First, let's talk about the first one.

We know that biological/medical technology ultimately needs to go through a lengthy phase to enter the practical stage and generate economic value, such as undergoing multiple phases of clinical trials and approval from the U.S. FDA. Even if these projects in DeSci do not have to go through such complex processes, they still need to undergo scrutiny from regulatory agencies, which is quite time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Therefore, there is a significant uncertainty regarding when these biological/medical-related projects in the current DeSci ecosystem will yield results and how substantial those results will be.

Now, let's discuss the second one.

I generally categorize projects into three types: scientific field, engineering field, and application field.

Scientific research in the scientific and engineering fields is mainly conducted in universities, research institutions, and large enterprises. They require massive long-term funding. They aim to solve problems that plague the scientific and engineering fields, especially theoretical issues. Even if this type of research produces some results, many may not be able to be transformed into products and services in the short term.

On the other hand, application projects are different; they do not aim to solve problems in the scientific and engineering fields but rather directly utilize existing results and answers from these fields to create products or services. The challenges they address are far less than those in the scientific and engineering fields.

Among these three categories, only projects in the application field can yield results relatively quickly.

Since the launch of Ethereum in 2015, we have experienced various project financing methods in the crypto ecosystem, whether ICOs, IEOs, or IDOs; the projects they fund are essentially in the application field.

The reason these projects can succeed and these financing methods can generate wealth effects is fundamentally that some of these projects have indeed successfully launched and operated in the short term.

Without the emergence of these successful projects, no amount of boasting or bubble-blowing would make it possible to inflate anything.

However, many of the projects currently being financed in the DeSci ecosystem precisely have one or two deadlocks mentioned above: either they may face long cycles of biological/medical projects; or they lean towards scientific and engineering projects, making it very difficult to see applicable and value-generating results in the short term.

Recently, some leading projects in this track, such as Bio, are striving to create conditions to develop the ecosystem. Bio is trying to create a financing platform modeled after Virtual to allow projects to raise funds on it.

It is hard to say how effective this measure will be, as the reasons remain the same as mentioned above. It can temporarily drive up the price of project tokens and stimulate speculative interest in the track, but if there is no subsequent progress in the projects over a slightly longer period, the enthusiasm for the track will decline again.

However, I will continue to pay attention to this track and casually participate in projects I like. At least at this stage, it feels more like a public welfare track, somewhat similar to Gitcoin's community donations.