DeSci Musings

Two ideas are on a collision course: the swelling enthusiasm of web3 converts (and their tools: NFTs, DAOs, Tokens) and the nagging problems of institutional science. The result is the nascent "DeSci" movement — a loose definition and affiliation of people attempting to weld these two ideas together. [1]

I tried myself. Last summer, I conceived of a science NFT prototype on Experiment. I wrote a long essay about the thinking behind the project and, with sincere uncertainty, launched the token on OpenSea. It didn't take. We needed $20k to build the tool and run the experiment, but it turned out to be too high a price for an unproven digital asset.

However, I consider the project a success. Writing and dreaming up a potential DeSci future is easy, but actually launching a project with a price tag and personal reputation on the line was more enlightening. It forced serious conversations with lawyers, science funders, and NFT collectors. It gave me a better sense of the barriers standing between these new ideas and real-world impact.

Here are my notes and thoughts:

The ideas coming from the DeSci community are the weirdest and wildest science futures yet. They make the open science movement of the past twenty years seem pedestrian: tokenized journals, decentralized lab protocols, crowd-funded drug development. They are complicated schemes born of the crypto-native cultures from which they're emerging. I think most won't work because they're so far afield of current research habits, but some might! And I applaud the high-variance experimentation.

Crypto philanthropy is serious business. The crypto set is wasting no time in reshaping philanthropy. They made their money by betting big on a radically different, tech-enabled future and their whole-system views are spreading to their giving habits. Many of the exciting new science organizational experiments are funded by crypto wealth. I've come to believe that the story of better science will wind up being a story of better philanthropy, and the crypto philanthropists are a big reason why. To that end, I recommend the Protocol Labs "Funding the Commons" event series to get a sense of how different and genuine this philanthropic movement is becoming.

Stunts aren't necessarily signal. DeSci is full of stunts. People auctioning off NFTs from their lab. Universities launching NFTs for famous intellectual property and bringing in tens of thousands of dollars. New DAOs are announced every week. Stunts make headlines, but what has really changed? The signal I'm watching for: a secondary sale. I'm waiting for someone to come along and buy one of these NFTs from the initial buyer/collector, whether that's because they value the intellectual property, have created a sort of secondary philanthropic model based on impact certificates, or just want to build a relationship with the scientist. The reason doesn't really matter, but the action does. A secondary market makes all the speculation real.

Protocols > Platforms. New standards and protocols can be a major source of technological progress. Standards entrepreneurs are underrated future shapers. Crypto has taken that notion to new heights. The entrepreneurs of the DeSci movement, so far, have mostly focused on platforms — trying to win converts into their DAO or publishing scheme. A better DeSci discussion would be less focused on new platforms and more focused on new standards. For example, a simple SAFE-like contract for technology transfer or an open grant proposal standard. DeSci should avoid the urge to re-centralize on some new platform so early in the prototyping era.

Don't mistake a clear view for a short distance. [2] Life repeatedly teaches me this lesson, and it's particularly important when imagining new DeSci futures. There were traditional science funders who wanted to fund our project, but they didn’t want to deal with the NFT. In fact, they legally couldn’t deal with the NFT. This could be a long game.

Science operates best as a gift culture, not a commercial culture. Of course, companies and useful market applications come from new discoveries, but the heart of science is a communal celebration of our collective knowledge. The commercial side of science is undergoing a much-needed evolution, but financialization isn’t a cure-all. I’d argue the most important infrastructural advances in science in the past 20 years — Sci-Hub, Wikipedia, and arXiv — have been in the gift realm. So far, DeSci is trending in the wrong direction.

Mind the $100B hurdle. In the US, the federal research engine is still the driver of modern science. It's hard to change the culture when there is such a strong pull — more than $100B/year in federal research funding — to maintain the status quo. Figuring out ways to influence the federal spend towards new funding mechanisms has to be the play. Philanthropic support is not unending. The new scientists should be in the prototype and leverage business, and be wary of any "new paradigm" Kool-Aid.

Don't underestimate the power of enthusiasm. The DeSci community is full of idealistic optimism. I refuse to bet against that kind of momentum, ever. It almost always leads to something new and interesting. But idealism is a finite resource. There is a window of opportunity to build out these new ways of collectively organizing and sharing knowledge, and the DeSci crew is seizing their moment. Carry on!

[1] Dr Jocelynn Pearl keeps the most up-to-date list of new projects.

[2] Paul Saffo deserves credit for the aphorism. That’s where I heard it.