Coin overview
BIO
Ended--
Last price (USDT)
1.79M
24h total (USDT)
5.76M
Total vol (USDT)
2024-12-25 09:00:00 ~ 2025-01-03 09:30:00
Trading time (UTC+0)
2025-01-03 11:00:00 ~ 2025-01-03 15:00:00
Delivery time (UTC+0)
Total supply3.32B
Resources
Introduction
BIO is an open network for biotech acceleration that directs funding to the best early-stage science. With BIO, patients, scientists and biotech builders can collectively fund, build & own portfolios of tokenized biotech projects. BIO protocol provides funding, incentives & liquidity to catalyze an on-chain scientific economy.
Scroll (SCR) To Rally Higher? Key Emerging Fractal Signaling Potential Upside Move
Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2025 | 08:56 AM GMT The cryptocurrency market is bouncing back from its recent dip as Ethereum (ETH) reclaims $4,300, registering a 3% daily gain. This upside momentum is spilling over into altcoins , with Scroll (SCR) emerging as one of the notable movers. SCR surged by an impressive 14% today, and its chart is now flashing a bullish technical setup that strongly resembles the breakout structure seen in Bio Protocol (BIO) in this week. Source: Coinmarketcap SCR Mirrors BIO’s Breakout Structure BIO provides a valuable fractal reference. After forming a falling wedge pattern breakout—a well-known bullish reversal signal—BIO consolidated beneath a red-marked resistance zone before reclaiming multiple resistance levels. The breakout fueled a powerful 124% rally in just weeks. BIO and SCR Fractal Chart/Coinsprobe (Source: Tradingview) Now, SCR is beginning to trace a similar path. The token has broken out of its falling wedge pattern and has established a support foundation around the red zone at $0.347. Currently, SCR is trading above that level at $0.41, signaling strength in its price structure. What’s Next for SCR? If the fractal continues to play out, holding this $0.357 support zone could serve as the springboard for the next rally leg. The next major resistance lies near $0.692, which would represent an 85% upside from current levels. However, traders should remain cautious. A dip back below the red zone support could invalidate the bullish setup and push SCR into deeper consolidation. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and not financial advice. Always conduct your own research before investing in cryptocurrencies.
Bio Protocol to Launch First BioAgent Sale Project Aubrai, with 20% of Total Supply Allocated for Sale
Foresight News reports that the decentralized science (DeSci) platform Bio Protocol will launch its first BioAgent sale project, Aubrai. Aubrai has a total supply of 2 million tokens, of which 20% will be allocated for sale, 6% for the liquidity pool, 15% for the treasury, 20.1% for initial backers, 10% for LEVF, 22% for VitaDAO, and 6.9% for Bio Protocol. The token TGE is scheduled for August 25. Aubrai is a decentralized scientific agent jointly developed by VitaDAO and BIO, aimed at combating human aging.
Bio Protocol Launches Token Launchpad, Allocation Depends on Staked BioXP Shares
BlockBeats News, August 22 — DeSci protocol Bio Protocol has recently launched a token launch platform, with its first project being Aubrai. Users can obtain allocation for new token issuances by staking BioXP, and can acquire tokens by contributing BIO. The final allocation depends on the amount of BioXP staked. BioXP can be obtained through the following methods: staking Bio or Bio ecosystem assets; social participation (“Yapping”); DeSci score (purchasing ecosystem asset tokens, participating in past and upcoming sales on the Bio token launch platform, etc.); retroactive rewards (participating in Bio auctions to claim BIOXP); and project curation in Bio Protocol V1, among others. The first BioAgent Launch project, Aubrai, will have a 24-hour sale period, with the opening time to be announced separately. The AUBRAI token will be listed immediately after the sale concludes. Additionally, according to market data, BIO’s 24-hour price increase has expanded to 25%, with its market capitalization rebounding to $345 million.
Top 3 Altcoins Accumulated Off Exchanges in Mid-August
By the third week of August, several altcoins experienced a sharp drop in exchange reserves. This trend reflects growing demand for accumulation and off-exchange holding. The shift is especially notable as the so-called altcoin season has become increasingly selective. Which tokens are seeing this surge in accumulation, and what factors drive investor optimism? 1. Ethena (ENA) Data from Santiment shows that Ethena (ENA) exchange reserves fell from 1.3 billion to 1.15 billion during the third week of August. In other words, 150 million ENA left centralized exchanges. This happened while ENA’s price surged 30% in August, climbing from $0.51 to $0.65. ENA Supply on Exchanges. Source: Santiment. The reserve drop coincided with the Ethena Foundation announcing a $260 million buyback program. The plan allocates around $5 million daily to repurchase ENA from the market. Tokenomist estimates the buyback could remove 3.48% of the circulating supply. This absorption of sell pressure boosts long-term investor confidence. In addition, Ethena crossed major milestones in August. Revenue surpassed $500 million, while USDe supply reached a record high of $11.7 billion. Together, these drivers fueled ENA accumulation and exchange reserve declines. 2. BIO Protocol (BIO) BIO Protocol, a leading project in the DeSci sector, delivered an exceptional performance in August with gains of over 265%. Alongside the price rally, exchange reserves fell sharply. From early August to now, reserves dropped from 380 million to 294 million BIO — a more than 22% decline. The third week of August saw the most dramatic movement. Investors withdrew 42 million BIO in just one week, pushing exchange reserves to their lowest level this year. BIO Supply on Exchanges. Source: Santiment. Several catalysts explain this accumulation wave. BIO launched a staking program early in August that attracted over 25 million tokens. Additionally, Arthur Hayes invested $1 million into BIO this week, reigniting market attention. Bio Protocol also rolled out a new way to reach new investors. Users are asked to discuss the project on social media to earn BioXP, which gives them access to the first BioAgent sales. These factors combined to boost visibility, attract new investors, and accelerate accumulation. 3. API3 API3, an oracle-focused project, regained investor interest in August, sending its price up more than 130%. At the same time, exchange reserves fell to their lowest point this year. The third week of August marked a turning point. Over 9 million API3 were withdrawn from exchanges, reducing exchange supply to just 17.19 million. API3 Supply on Exchanges. Source: Santiment. The catalyst was Upbit’s listing of API3. According to the BeInCrypto report, the token’s price jumped over 120% immediately after the listing. Investor focus on the Oracle sector also increased due to Chainlink’s (LINK) rally. LINK’s strong performance in the past month spilled over into related projects. Data from Artemis confirmed Oracle was the market’s best-performing sector in August. The surge in API3 accumulation has kept its price trading steady at above $1.50. These three altcoins highlight different drivers behind August’s selective altcoin rally. While a broad-based altcoin season has yet to emerge, projects with unique catalysts — whether buyback programs, staking incentives, or an exchange listing — are attracting investor attention and capital.
Chromia (CHR) To Rally Higher? Key Emerging Fractal Signaling Potential Upside Move
Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2025 | 06:04 AM GMT The cryptocurrency market is rebounding from the recent pullback as Ethereum (ETH) climbs back to $4,300, posting a 3% daily gain. This momentum has lifted sentiment across the broader altcoin market, including Chromia (CHR). CHR has surged by an impressive 10% in the past 24 hours and is now showing a bullish technical structure that bears a striking resemblance to the breakout recently seen in Bio Protocol (BIO). Source: Coinmarketcap CHR Mirrors BIO’s Breakout Structure BIO’s price action provides a useful roadmap. Earlier this year, BIO broke out of a classic falling wedge pattern—a well-recognized bullish reversal formation. After the breakout, the token consolidated just below a resistance zone (highlighted in red on the chart). Once this barrier gave way, BIO regained strong momentum, reclaiming multiple resistance levels and ultimately delivering a 124% rally. BIO and CHR Fractal Chart/Coinsprobe (Source: Tradingview) Now, CHR is beginning to follow the same path. The token has already broken out of its own falling wedge pattern and is currently testing a critical resistance zone around $0.1083—marked in red on the chart. What’s Next for CHR? If this fractal continues to unfold, a successful breakout above $0.1083 could act as the catalyst for a fresh rally. From there, CHR could climb toward the next resistance levels at $0.1457 and $0.2337—a potential 122% upside from current prices, mirroring BIO’s explosive move.
BIO price forms a golden cross, can it rally to $0.30 as whales buy?BIO price forms a golden cross
BIO price looks poised to confirm a golden cross amid continued whale accumulation. Can it rally to $0.30 in the coming weeks? Summary Bio Protocol is up over 80% in the past week and has hit a six-month high today. Whales and high-profile figures have continued investing in BIO. A golden cross has formed on the daily chart, supported by other bullish technicals. According to data from crypto.news, Bio Protocol ( BIO ) rallied over 80% in the past 7 days, trading at $0.186, its highest level in six months. As of press time, its monthly gains stand at 175% while its year-to-date gains are over 340%. BIO crypto has rallied as whales and public figures show strong demand for the token. As per data from blockchain analytics platform Nansen, the balance of tokens held by whale wallets has increased to 21.94 million, up from 18.72 million recorded 7 days earlier and significantly higher than 2.03 million a month ago. Such strong accumulation by whales is often seen as a vote of confidence in the token’s outlook, creating a feedback loop that draws in retail investors and fuels further price appreciation. Source: Nansen The balance held by public figures has gone up to 7.66 million from just around 3,900 tokens held just a week earlier. BIO token also gained traction as the balance held by exchanges dropped 11.6%, from 471 million on Aug. 15 to just over 414 million at the time of writing. A decline in exchange balances typically suggests that investors are moving tokens into their own wallets, reducing the available supply on trading platforms. This could lower selling pressure and potentially support further price gains. A more recent catalyst that could be driving the token’s gains is the launch of Bio Protocol’s first BioAgent, Aubrai, yesterday, Aug. 21. The debut linked BIO’s utility to real biotech applications , boosting demand for the token. BIO price forms a golden cross BIO price had been consolidating within the $0.040–$0.100 range since early March before breaking out of this accumulation zone in August, following the confirmation of a double-bottom pattern on the daily chart—a formation typically associated with trend reversals and renewed buying momentum. BIO price forms a golden cross after it breaks out of a multimonth accumulation zone on the daily chart — Aug. 22 | Source: crypto.news The breakout has been reinforced by the emergence of a golden cross, as the 50-day simple moving average crossed above the 200-day moving average. This signal is generally viewed as a strong indicator of sustained bullish momentum. Supporting indicators such as the MACD and RSI are also trending higher, underscoring the strength of the ongoing uptrend. BIO MACD and RSI chart — Aug. 22 | Source: crypto.news From a technical perspective, the next key upside target lies near the $0.30 psychological level, which also coincides with the 1.618 Fibonacci extension. A move to this zone would represent an additional 67% advance from current price levels. However, if bullish momentum weakens, a decisive drop below the $0.10 psychological threshold, closely aligned with the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement, would invalidate this bullish setup and suggest a deeper correction.
Phala Network (PHA) To Rally Higher? Key Fractal Pattern Signals Potential Upside Move
Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2025 | 06:45 AM GMT The cryptocurrency market is rebounding from the recent dip as Ethereum (ETH) reclaims $4,300, notching a 3% daily gain. This strength has carried into the broader altcoin market, with Phala Network (PHA) now showing early signs of a potential breakout. PHA climbed 4% in the last 24 hours, and its price structure is beginning to resemble a bullish fractal pattern recently confirmed in Bio Protocol (BIO). Source: Coinmarketcap PHA Mirrors BIO’s Breakout Structure BIO’s chart has become a valuable reference point for traders. Earlier this year, BIO broke out of a classic falling wedge pattern—a bullish reversal formation. After consolidating beneath a red-marked resistance zone, the token powered higher, reclaiming multiple resistance levels and ultimately rallying by an impressive 124%. BIO and PHA Fractal Chart/Coinsprobe (Source: Tradingview) PHA appears to be walking the same path. It has also completed a breakout from a falling wedge structure and is now trading just below its immediate red resistance zone at $0.13, currently priced around $0.1186. What’s Next for PHA? If the fractal continues to play out, a successful breakout above $0.13 could serve as the trigger for a stronger rally. From there, PHA could target the next resistance levels at $0.1625 and $0.2058, which would represent a potential 72% upside from current prices.
Bio Protocol (BIO) To Soar Further? Key Harmonic Pattern Signals Potential Upside Move
Date: Tue, Aug 19, 2025 | 06:50 AM GMT The cryptocurrency market is experiencing notable selling pressure as Ethereum (ETH) slips back to $4,250 from its recent high of $4,780. This weakness has extended to several major altcoins . Yet, despite the broader pullback, Bio Protocol (BIO) has managed to remain resilient, posting a 10% gain on the day and extending its monthly rally to over 100%. Adding to the bullish case, BIO’s chart is now highlighting a harmonic formation that suggests further upside could be on the horizon. Source: Coinmarketcap Harmonic Pattern Hints at Potential Bounce On the 4-hour chart, BIO is forming a Bearish ABCD harmonic pattern. While technically labeled as bearish, this setup usually involves a strong bullish CD-leg rally before the Potential Reversal Zone (PRZ) becomes relevant. The structure began with a rally from Point A near $0.0559 to Point B, before BIO retraced to Point C around $0.0956, where buyers re-entered with conviction. Since then, the token has surged higher and is currently trading near $0.1380, with price action confirming the unfolding of the CD leg. Bio Protocol (BIO) Daily Chart/Coinsprobe (Source: Tradingview) The 1.90 Fibonacci extension of the BC leg projects Point D near $0.1787, marking a key upside target that traders are closely eyeing as the next potential resistance zone. What’s Next for BIO? If bullish momentum continues, BIO could push toward the $0.1787 PRZ, a level that could serve as both a profit-taking zone and a test of market strength. Historically, harmonic patterns often encounter heavy resistance at these completion zones, leading to either consolidation or a corrective pullback.
Memecoin (MEME) To Rally Higher? Key Emerging Fractal Signaling Potential Upside Move
Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2025 | 05:10 PM GMT The cryptocurrency market is staging a notable rebound from the recent dip as Ethereum (ETH) reclaims $4,300, marking a 3.5% daily jump. This strength has spilled over into the major memecoins, including Memecoin (MEME). MEME has entered bullish territory, recording a solid 34% rally in just a single day, and is now flashing a technical setup that closely resembles the breakout structure recently seen in Bio Protocol (BIO). Source: Coinmarketcap MEME Mirrors BIO’s Breakout Structure BIO’s chart offers a valuable reference point. After breaking out of a classic falling wedge pattern—a well-known bullish reversal formation—BIO quickly regained momentum by bouncing off the 100-day moving average. From there, it reclaimed multiple resistance zones and ultimately rallied by nearly 68%. MEME and BIO Fractal Chart/Coinsprobe (Source: Tradingview) Now, MEME is starting to carve out the same path. The token has already broken out of its falling wedge formation and successfully reclaimed its 100-day moving average. This technical move propelled MEME past its first resistance at $0.0026, with the token now trading above it at $0.00275. What’s Next for MEME? If this emerging fractal continues to unfold, MEME could extend its rally toward the next resistance at $0.0038. A short-term retest of the first resistance zone would not be unusual before the token attempts a fresh push higher. Beyond that, a move toward the third resistance at $0.0050 remains possible—representing a potential 73% upside from current levels.
Data: Arthur Hayes Suspected of Accumulating 7.66 Million BIO Tokens Worth Approximately $1.1 Million
According to ChainCatcher, on-chain analyst @ai_9684xtpa has monitored that Arthur Hayes allegedly opened a position of 7.66 million BIO tokens, worth $1.1 million, about half an hour ago. Since August 10, Arthur Hayes has spent a total of $14.37 million to purchase six Ethereum ecosystem tokens. Among them, only PENDLE appears to have been partially sold (the flow cannot be confirmed due to market maker transactions), while the remaining tokens are still being held.
Bio Protocol hits 6-month high as harmonic pattern signals further upside
Bio Protocol funds $80K brain health trial, earning CLAW royalty tokens. Staked BIO tokens rise to 125M, tightening supply and boosting demand. Harmonic chart pattern signals a possible BIO price rally toward $0.1787. The Bio Protocol (BIO) token has regained strong momentum after a sharp pullback earlier this month, climbing to a six-month high of $0.1514 before settling near $0.138. The recovery follows a string of bullish catalysts, ranging from real-world biotech partnerships to a surge in staking activity, while traders are now watching technical signals that hint at further upside. BIO price recovery sparks fresh momentum After dropping to $0.0962 during the recent correction, BIO has staged an impressive rebound of more than 50% in a matter of days. The strong recovery comes at a time when the broader crypto market has been under selling pressure, yet Bio Protocol has managed to move against the trend. At press time, the token was trading nearly 100% higher on the month, underscoring its growing resilience. Trading activity has also intensified. Daily volumes have spiked by more than 700% last week, crossing $440 million as new investors piled in. This sharp increase in liquidity has strengthened confidence that BIO’s market depth is improving, making it more attractive for both retail and institutional traders. Clinical trial funding lifts sentiment One of the strongest drivers of BIO’s price rally has been the announcement of its first major biotech initiative. Through its partner Cerebrum DAO, the Bio Protocol community approved $80,000 in funding for a Phase 2 human clinical trial of Percepta, a supplement targeting memory loss and neurodegeneration. Big week in the Biosphere 🧪 • Launched Bio Markets w/ real-time DeSci analytics & BioAgent trading coming • 125M+ $BIO staked + 1M BioXP Boost • Funding human trial for Percepta $CLAW • Molecule V2 DeSci equity • $BeeARD psilocybin derivative Read the full weekly update: https://t.co/l5lH2Utcjo — Bio Protocol (@BioProtocol) August 17, 2025 The deal not only gives Bio Protocol direct exposure to real-world biotech outcomes but also provides it with CLAW tokens. These tokens are tied to royalties from Percepta sales, creating a potential revenue-sharing model that sets BIO apart from other speculative altcoins. Investors see this as a sign that the project is delivering on its promise to link decentralised finance with biotech innovation. BIO token staking reduces supply pressure Another factor supporting BIO’s price is the steady growth in token staking. The amount of staked BIO tokens has climbed to 125 million, representing about 3.5% of the circulating supply. This is a significant jump from 25 million staked tokens earlier in August. By staking, holders earn BioXP, which provides access to new ecosystem assets such as CLAW. More importantly, staking reduces the liquid supply on exchanges. As a result, when demand rises, the price impact is magnified. Traders are already drawing comparisons to earlier DeFi tokens where similar dynamics sparked explosive rallies. Technical setup points to higher targets From a technical perspective, BIO has cleared several key resistance levels. It moved above the 7-day simple moving average at $0.116 and broke through the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement at $0.128. The next resistance sits near $0.145, with momentum indicators suggesting strong buying pressure despite a relative strength index that hovers near overbought territory. Adding to this outlook, analysts have identified a harmonic ABCD pattern unfolding on the 4-hour chart. The harmonic ABCD pattern began with a rally from $0.0559 to $0.0956 before retracing and launching into a bullish CD-leg. The extension of this structure projects an upside target near $0.1800, which traders are closely monitoring as the next profit-taking zone. Bio Protocol price outlook remains cautiously bullish While the harmonic setup points to further upside, traders remain alert to the possibility of consolidation. A failure to hold above the 50-period moving average, currently near $0.1159, could open the door to short-term corrections. Still, the combination of real-world utility, staking-driven scarcity, and a favourable technical structure has left sentiment firmly bullish. Bio Protocol’s six-month high marks an important milestone for a token launched less than a year ago. But whether it can sustain this rally will depend on both the outcome of the Percepta trial and the broader adoption of decentralised science models.
Can BIO's V2 Launch Revive the Desci Hype?
Once considered a pioneer in the integration of research and cryptography, the leading project in the DeSci track, $BIO, has been under pressure since its launch in January this year—despite the backing of top investors including Vitalik and CZ, it has still been unable to escape the double impact of the market and liquidity, with its market value shrinking by 95% from its all-time high at one point, becoming the focus of community dissatisfaction and questioning, and causing the track that once produced billion-dollar market cap myths like $RIF and $URO to fall into a slump. However, with the recent official launch of BIO Protocol V2, introducing new mechanisms such as the Launchpad and staking points, the total staked amount exceeded 100 million BIO within the first week of launch, and the market value quickly doubled to surpass $2 billion, once again igniting the market's attention and imagination for the DeSci track. Why Has the Once-Prominent $BIO Fallen from Grace? The listing story of BIO was originally a highlight of the DeSci track: A-list exchanges such as Binance, OKX, Kraken, etc., all participated, with a first-day trading volume exceeding $20 billion, and a FDV once reaching $250 million, making it the most sensational scientific crypto asset issuance in early 2025. However, behind the excitement lay the seeds of a price collapse. However, the heat of this feast did not last long. BIO was issued through an auction model, with the initial circulation ratio higher than most new coins, coupled with an inflated valuation upon listing, making it appear overpriced in the absence of immediate utility. Early market buyers were more drawn to the narrative and emotion rather than the practical value. When key features such as the Launchpad, staking system, BioXP points, and other critical functions were still in the planning stage, investors quickly found that their tokens did not bring immediate returns in terms of participation rewards or governance rights. The disconnect between valuation and utility became the first force causing the price to plummet from its peak. The downturn of BIO is also closely related to timing issues. The core features did not go live on the TGE day, leading to a loss of market confidence during the waiting period. Furthermore, in terms of ecosystem expansion, the independent operation of Molecule Catalyst's Launchpad dispersed funds and attention, weakening the cohesion of the main platform. In addition, as the macro market entered a phase of reduced risk appetite, funds quickly moved away from projects with high FDV and no immediate cash flow. The lack of ongoing fundamental support and alignment of product development pace led BIO from a star project at the beginning of the year to gradually fall into a low trading volume and price slump. The Resurgence of BIO Protocol Building a Research Acceleration Lab In the first half of 2025, BIO Protocol went through a rollercoaster journey—from the narrative peak at the beginning of the year to a price slump, but its pace did not slow down. Not only did it deliver outstanding market performance in the DeSci track, but it also pushed several biopharmaceuticals to the brink of clinical trials, allowing "on-chain research" to experience the real breath of medical validation for the first time. The price retracement did not deter the team's ambition, but instead led to more development actions: in May, through community governance, BIO postponed the unlocking of team and advisor tokens, signaling to the market "we are here for the long haul." The research progress also caught people's attention—VitaRNA and VitaFAST both commenced clinical trials in the UAE, taking only 11 months from concept to enrollment, while the traditional model often takes 4–6 years; 14 compounds predicted by AI with a success rate of over 85% are eagerly awaiting Q3 efficacy readouts. Meanwhile, 5 new BioDAOs including QBIO, Long Covid Labs, Curetopia, SpineDAO, MycoDAO were established, with a total fundraising amount of $8.9 million within the year, injecting continuous fuel into this fast-moving research machine. V2: Transition from DeSci 1.0 to DeSci 2.0 In addition, in August, the BIO team officially launched Bio Protocol V2, aiming to put research funding and execution into "high-speed mode," addressing the pain points of high FDV initial offerings, lack of real-time functionality, and ecosystem dispersion in the DeSci 1.0 stage. The core of V2 lies in four main engines: Low FDV Fixed Price Initial Offering: Drawing lessons from the success paths of Pump.fun and Virtuals, V2 reduces the project's initial valuation to $205,000 FDV, with 35% of tokens sold directly, all raised $BIO injected into the liquidity pool, providing depth and price momentum from the start, creating a strong bond between the community and the project. BioXP Points System: Quantifies behaviors such as staking, LP, on-chain interactions, and social sharing into points, linked to the DeSci Score, with points valid for 14 days, used to allocate quotas for low FDV projects, highly engaged users will continue to have priority opportunities. Staking & veBIO: Staking BIO not only earns point bonuses but also governance voting power; staking other assets within the ecosystem yields a higher point return rate, encouraging support for the entire network. Liquidity Engine: Automatically generate LP after launch, collect a 1% fee per transaction in the secondary market (70% to the project treasury, 30% to the protocol), forming a positive cycle of "active trading - research funding increase - progress promotion - market heat revival." Accelerating Implementation to Embrace the New DeSci Era VitaRNA and VitaFAST are taking DeSci from concept to practical implementation. The two drugs will undergo synchronized trials in the UAE, Singapore, and Switzerland, with the potential to become the first batch of drugs fully funded by DeSci and entering the clinical stage in less than two years at a cost of less than $500,000. This not only breaks the traditional barriers of drug R&D that often take years and cost tens of millions of dollars but also sets a benchmark for on-chain research. Meanwhile, BIO is collaborating with Pfizer on a pilot project to explore a compliant Intellectual Property Tokenization (IPT) model, establishing a new capital circulation and value distribution mechanism for future drug development. Bio Protocol will introduce decentralized scientific research agents, enabling key research processes such as drug screening, clinical operations, and fund allocation to be automated. The upcoming BIO Copilot will transform into a scientist's on-chain research assistant, advancing research into a programmable, scalable, machine-driven stage, breaking free from human bottlenecks and entering an intelligent orbit of high-frequency iteration. In addition, the capital and market flywheel is quietly starting up. The Launchpad 2.0 plan will launch 10-20 low-cap projects in the coming months, covering areas such as Agent, IPT, and research tools, with an average fundraising of $70,000, with Base Chain leading the way, followed closely by Solana. Meanwhile, the "Founding LP Program" is attracting liquidity providers willing to invest over $100,000 in BIO LP, offering participants revenue enhancement, reward points, priority allocation, and exclusive support. Drawing on the high-yield flywheel model of projects like Virtuals, BIO is attempting to ignite a new market heatwave, creating a closed loop of research fund flow, token flow, and information flow, driving the arrival of "Scientific Singularity." What is DeSci? The Decentralized Engine Accelerating Research If the operating logic of traditional science is like a massive steam engine, then Decentralized Science (DeSci) is more like a high-speed electric motor—lighter, faster, and more transparent. In the past, funding for scientific research was almost entirely controlled by government foundations, academic institutions, and large pharmaceutical companies. From project proposal to fund disbursement, the process often involved months or even years of approval procedures; research outcomes were locked behind expensive paywalls, meaning even research projects funded by taxpayers could not be freely accessed by the general public. The storage of research data, ownership of intellectual property, and outcome commercialization were all tightly controlled by centralized institutions and processes. While this model was robust, it also brought inefficiency, conservatism, and innate resistance to disruptive innovation. What DeSci aims to disrupt is precisely this top-down, slow, and closed scientific ecosystem. Through the open ledger of blockchain, it ensures full transparency of fund flows, research progress, and data usage; it replaces small review groups with decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), allowing the fate of research projects to be determined by a broader community through voting; and through tokenized incentive mechanisms, early supporters are deeply tied to research outcomes, attracting more funding and talent. This model not only shortens the funding turnover cycle for research but also breaks down barriers between disciplines and regions through global collaboration, providing opportunities for innovative ideas that were previously difficult to fund. In this arena, BIO Protocol is undoubtedly a representative and ambitious player. It not only provides early-stage funding channels for biotech projects but also builds a complete infrastructure that includes project screening, fund-raising, on-chain liquidity management, data transparency, and research automation. Through BIO, researchers can directly "crowdfund" research funding from the global community just like initiating a crypto project; investors can get involved at the initial stage of a project and share profits when research outcomes are commercialized. Compared to traditional research, what BIO aims to achieve is a scientific ecosystem that does not require waiting for funding approval, is not monopolized by a single entity, and allows everyone to participate and benefit. Summary BIO Protocol has experienced dramatic fluctuations from a high-profile launch at the beginning of the year to price bottoms in the middle of the year and is now experiencing a phased rebound with the launch of the V2 version. The new low FDV launch, point staking, and liquidity mechanisms have injected new vitality into the ecosystem and reignited market interest in the DeSci track. However, whether it can sustain the rebound in the future and bring stable gains from new listings still depends on the project's implementation pace and market conditions, with short-term uncertainties still looming.
Bio Protocol Enters V2 Phase, Users Can Earn BioXP Through Staking
Foresight News reports that Bio Protocol has entered the V2 phase and launched Launcher V2, allowing users to sell low-market-cap BioAgents, IP-Tokens, and BioDAOs. In addition, users can stake BIO and DeSci tokens to earn BioXP, and accumulate points by participating in activities. These points can be used to access new sales.
Data: Tokens such as SUI, BIO, and OP to undergo significant unlocks next week
According to Token Unlocks data, tokens such as SUI, BIO, and OP will undergo significant unlocks next week, including: Sui (SUI) will unlock approximately 44 million tokens on June 1 at 8:00 AM (UTC+8), representing 1.32% of the current circulation, valued at approximately $154 million; Bio Protocol (BIO) will unlock approximately 339 million tokens on May 28 at 8:00 AM (UTC+8), representing 20.22% of the current circulation, valued at approximately $28 million; Optimism (OP) will unlock approximately 31.34 million tokens on May 31 at 8:00 AM (UTC+8), representing 1.83% of the current circulation, valued at approximately $22.7 million; Kamino (KMNO) will unlock approximately 229 million tokens on May 30 at 8:00 PM (UTC+8), representing 14.97% of the current circulation, valued at approximately $15.1 million; ZetaChain (ZETA) will unlock approximately 44.26 million tokens on June 1 at 8:00 AM (UTC+8), representing 5.34% of the current circulation, valued at approximately $10.9 million; Renzo (REZ) will unlock approximately 423 million tokens on May 30 at 7:00 PM (UTC+8), representing 16.10% of the current circulation, valued at approximately $5.7 million; dydx (DYDX) will unlock approximately 8.33 million tokens on June 1 at 8:00 AM (UTC+8), representing 1.07% of the current circulation, valued at approximately $5 million.
Bio Protocol (BIO) Approaches Key Resistance – Is a Breakout on Horizon?
Date: Fri, May 23, 2025 | 08:45 AM GMT The cryptocurrency market has mounted a solid comeback in recent weeks from its bearish Q1. Bitcoin (BTC) has managed to melt faces with its new all-time high of $111,970, while the impressive 48% monthly jump of Ethereum (ETH) is uplifting sentiment across altcoins — including Bio Protocol (BIO). The DeSci token has surged over 22% in the last month, and the chart suggest it might not be done yet. Technical analysis points to a potential breakout forming on the horizon. Source: Coinmarketcap A Classic Bullish Pattern: Cup and Handle On the daily chart, BIO is forming a textbook Cup and Handle pattern — a bullish continuation structure often seen ahead of explosive breakouts. The “cup” took shape between late March and early May, starting from a steep drop from around $0.1055 and forming a rounded base near $0.040. The “handle” formed with a healthy pullback to around $0.070, followed by a quick bounce, showing buyer interest at higher lows. Bio Protocol (BIO) Daily Chart/Coinsprobe (Source: Tradingview) As of now, BIO is trading at $0.099 and pressing up against its key neckline resistance in the $0.10–$0.11 zone, a level it has struggled to breach on multiple occasions. What Happens If BIO Breaks Out? A decisive breakout above the $0.10–$0.11 range, especially with a confirmation retest, would validate the Cup and Handle pattern. This could potentially unlock a powerful rally. If confirmed, the measured move from the pattern suggests a price target in the $0.16–$0.17 range, which implies a 73% potential upside from current levels. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consult a financial advisor before making investment decisions.
Nansen: SYRUP, BIO, GOONC Rank Top Three in Smart Money Net Inflows Over the Past 24 Hours
On May 16, Nansen stated on social media that in the past 24 hours, the tokens with the highest net inflow from Smart Money were: · SYRUP: $1.12 million · BIO: $582,900 · GOONC: $304,800
Bio Protocol (BIO) To Rise Further? Key Harmonic Pattern Signals Potential Upside Move
Date: Sat, May 10, 2025 | 06:30 PM GMT The cryptocurrency market continues to build on its recent strength, with Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) leading the charge. BTC has crossed the $103K mark, while ETH has soared more than 63% in the past 30 days, now trading above $2,450 — its highest level in months. This bullish wave is spilling into altcoins too, including Bio Protocol (BIO). The DeSci token is currently up over 56% in its monthly gain and now trading near $0.086, and a classic harmonic pattern on its chart is hinting that more upside rally might be around the corner. Source: Coinmarketcap Harmonic Pattern Signals More Upside On the daily chart, BIO is currently forming what appears to be a Bearish Crab harmonic pattern — a technical formation often used to identify potential reversal zones when the final leg (CD) completes. The downtrend began around March 26, when BIO failed to stay above the $0.1465 resistance level (marked as point X). From there, the price dropped nearly 72%, bottoming out near $0.0405 on April 16 (point A). Bio Protocol (BIO) Daily Chart/Coinsprobe (Source: Tradingview) The AB leg retraced about 74% of the XA move — a textbook structure for a valid crab. Then, after a healthy retracement on the BC leg (around 69%), BIO found support near $0.055. From there, bulls took over, and the CD leg is now forming with strong upward momentum. The final D point, where this pattern is expected to complete, lies around $0.1465 — a level that aligns with the 1.618 Fibonacci extension of the XA leg. This is a critical level and is often considered a major resistance zone in crab patterns. What’s Next for BIO? If the current pattern plays out as expected, BIO could surge to around $0.1465, which would represent a potential 68% upside from its current trading price near $0.0864. That area also coincides with a key Fibonacci level and the completion zone of the harmonic pattern. Traders should remain alert, as such levels often attract selling pressure. While short-term momentum favors the bulls, a potential reversal or consolidation could occur once the D point is hit. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and not financial advice. Always conduct your own research before investing in cryptocurrencies.
Bio Protocol launches BioAgent, an open source plugin built on the elizaOS framework
According to Foresight News, Bio Protocol announced the launch of the open source plug-in BioAgent, which is built on the elizaOS framework and can automatically read and reason about scientific literature. It can also be used to convert scientific papers into structured knowledge stored in RDF triples and promote the advancement of scientific research in the field of artificial intelligence biotechnology. At the same time, it launched the BioAgentHack hackathon, which will run online for 2 months with a total prize of US$125,000.
Bio Protocol launches V1 upgrade to power DeSci research and boost BIO token utility
Bio Protocol, backed by YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs), has rolled out Bio V1, its first major update to provide efficient funding for scientific research on its DeSci platform powered by Base and Solana. Bio V1 introduced three main improvements, including the BioDAO Launchpad, BioAgents and new DAO Milestones, according to details shared with The Block. The BioDAO Launchpad replaces the platform’s earlier accelerator model, which hand-picked participants, with a fully on-chain system. Projects seeking funding can now register directly and move through three phases: Curation, where backers stake BIO tokens to vote on proposals; Funding, where selected projects raise capital via auctions or bonding curves; and Liquidity, which includes token generation and listings on decentralized exchanges. Liquidity is automatically allocated if funding thresholds are met. Backers of successful projects receive discounted tokens in the corresponding BioDAO, while those backing unsuccessful bids can withdraw their locked tokens. The system is touted to “break the black box of biotech,” according to Paul Kohlhaas, co-founder of Bio Protocol. “Bio V1 represents a huge leap for the biotech sector, aiming to democratize access to funding and accelerate RD,” Kohlhaas told The Block. “At a time when traditional scientific funding is faltering, this upgrade gives global communities the tools to co-develop breakthrough research via open RD networks that reduce the cost of capital, discovery, and commercialization,” he added. Since November 2024, Bio Protocol says it has raised over $15 million in funding for initiatives focused on rare diseases, quantum biology, and other emerging fields. AI agents and revenue Bio V1 also introduces BioAgents, AI systems designed to assist with research, reduce costs and streamline product development. These agents fall into two categories: Core Agents, which handle on-chain tasks such as treasury management and governance, and the BioAgent Fleet, which supports scientific analysis and intellectual property development for individual BioDAOs. "Integrating AI-powered BioAgents automates critical scientific tasks, from data analysis to hypothesis generation," Kohlhaas said to The Block, "Combining agentic automation with decentralized technologies can catalyze an explosion in autonomous science and unlock a new era of accessibility and scalability for life-saving discoveries." He cited early successes with DAOs such as Curetopia (focused on rare diseases), Long COVID Labs and MycoDAO, noting their rapid progression from funding rounds to clinical trials and treatment development. Profits from intellectual property, Kohlhaas said, flow back into the ecosystems that produced them. Bio V1 also introduces new revenue streams and utility for the BIO token through asset management, launchpad fees, liquidity provision and agent services. According to Bio Protocol, the upgrade aims to reshape how biotech breakthroughs are born by giving patients, researchers and crypto users the tools to support scientific innovation from day one. Bio Protocol operates in the emerging "DeSci" sector — short for decentralized science — which combines blockchain infrastructure with collaborative research models. Bio Protocol raised over $30 million in 2024 from investors like YZi Labs and says it has facilitated more than $34 million in global research funding to date. BIO, the platform’s native token, launched on Ethereum in January and debuted on Binance. An airdrop was also conducted on Ethereum for holders of BioDAO projects at the time.
Revolution or Scam? An In-Depth Analysis of DeSci's Current State
Original Article Title: DeSci: A Revolution? Or Just a Dream? Original Article Author: 100y eth, Crypto Writer Original Article Translation: zhouzhou, BlockBeats Editor's Note: This article explores the business model of the DeSci field and the shortcomings of the scientific research review system. The author points out that the current review process is inefficient, lacks transparency and effective incentives, affecting the impartiality of academic work. Furthermore, the prevalent "publish or perish" culture in academia makes researchers more inclined to pursue trending topics, overlooking the value of failed experiments. The rise of DeSci not only provides powerful solutions to these issues but also allows the decentralization concept to be more deeply reflected in the field of scientific research. The following is the original content (slightly reorganized for easier reading comprehension): The problems in academia are evident, but DeSci is not a cure-all. I recently obtained a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering and during my studies, I published four first-author papers, including in sub-journals of "Nature" and the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). Although my academic experience is limited to the graduate level and I have not served as an independent researcher, which may result in a less comprehensive perspective, in my nearly six-year academic career, I have deeply felt many structural issues in the academic system. In this context, DeSci (Decentralized Science) attempts to use blockchain technology to challenge the centralized structure of the scientific field, a concept that is undoubtedly fascinating. Recently, the topic of DeSci has swept through the crypto market, with many believing it can completely transform the research model in science. I also hope to see such a transformation. However, I believe the possibility of DeSci completely overturning the traditional academic world is not high. From my perspective, the more realistic scenario is that DeSci serves as a complementary means in some aspects, alleviating specific issues in the traditional academic system. Therefore, with the recent boom of DeSci, I would like to take this opportunity to, based on my limited academic experience, explore the structural issues in the traditional academic system, assess whether blockchain technology can truly address these issues, and analyze the impact DeSci may have on academia. 1. The Sudden Boom of DeSci 1.1 DeSci: From a Niche Concept to a Growing Movement The longstanding structural issues in academia have long been widely discussed, for example, in articles such as VOX's "270 Scientists' View on Science's Seven Major Challenges" and "The War for the Liberation of Science." Over the years, people have been constantly trying to solve these problems, some of which will be mentioned later in this article. As a concept, DeSci seeks to address these challenges by introducing blockchain technology into scientific research, but it did not start gaining attention until around 2020. At that time, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong introduced the concept of DeSci to the crypto community through ResearchHub, hoping to realign the incentive mechanism of scientific research through ResearchCoin (RSC). However, due to the speculative nature of the crypto market, DeSci failed to attract widespread user participation, with only a small portion of the community supporting this vision for a long time—until the emergence of pump.science. 1.2 The Butterfly Effect of pump.science pump.science is a DeSci project in the Solana ecosystem, built by the well-known DeSci platform Molecule. It serves as both a research funding platform and utilizes Wormbot technology for real-time streaming of long-term experiments. Users can propose compounds they believe may extend lifespan or purchase tokens related to these ideas. Once the token market cap surpasses a specific threshold, the project team uses Wormbot devices to conduct experiments to validate whether the compound can indeed extend the lifespan of the experimental subjects. If the experiment is successful, token holders receive equity in that compound. However, some community members have criticized this model, arguing that these experiments lack sufficient scientific rigor and may not truly foster life-extending drugs. Gwart's satirical comment represents a skeptical view of DeSci, questioning the arguments put forth by its supporters. pump.science adopts a Bonding Curve mechanism similar to Molecule, where the token price rises as the number of purchasing users increases. The launch of tokens like RIF (Representing Rifaximin) and URO (Representing Urokinase) coincided with the meme token frenzy in the crypto market, driving their prices higher. This unexpected bull run brought DeSci into the spotlight. Ironically, what fueled the DeSci craze was not its scientific essence, but the speculative price surge of its tokens. In the rapidly changing crypto market, DeSci has long been a niche area. However, in November 2024, it became one of the hottest narratives. Not only did the token issued by pump.science skyrocket, but Binance also announced an investment in DeSci's grant-funded Bio protocol. Existing DeSci tokens also saw significant price surges, marking a pivotal moment for this field. 2. Flaws in Traditional Science It is no exaggeration to say that the academic world is facing numerous systemic and severe issues. Over the years in academia, I have often questioned: how does such a flawed system manage to sustain itself? Before delving into the potential of DeSci, let's first take a look at the shortcomings of the traditional academic system. 2.1.1 Evolution of Research Funding Prior to the 19th century, scientists obtained research funding and made a living in a vastly different manner than today: Sponsorship: European monarchs and nobles would sponsor researchers to enhance their own prestige and drive scientific progress. For example, Galileo received sponsorship from the Medici family, enabling him to continue developing the telescope and conducting astronomical research. Religious institutions also played a significant role in scientific development; during the Middle Ages, the church and clergy sponsored research in astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. Self-funding: Many scientists relied on income from other professions to support their research. They may have been university professors, teachers, writers, or engineers, using these roles to financially back their research. By the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, governments and corporations began establishing centralized research funding systems. During World Wars I and II, various governments set up research institutions and heavily invested in defense research to gain a competitive edge in warfare. - In the United States, organizations such as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and the National Research Council (NRC) were established during World War I. - In Germany, the Emergency Association of German Science (Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft), founded in 1920, was the predecessor to today's German Research Foundation (DFG). - Concurrently, corporate research institutions like Bell Labs and GE Research Lab were established, signaling the active participation of enterprises in research funding. This government-corporate-led research funding model gradually became mainstream and continues to this day. Governments and corporations worldwide contribute substantial budgets to support global research. For instance, in just 2023, the U.S. federal government's RD expenditure amounted to a staggering $190 billion, a 13% increase from 2022. In the United States, the allocation process of research funding is supported by federal government funding for RD and distributed by multiple agencies. For example: · National Institutes of Health (NIH): the largest funder of biomedical research; · Department of Defense (DoD): focuses on research in the defense sector; · National Science Foundation (NSF): supports scientific and engineering research in various disciplines; · Department of Energy (DOE): responsible for research in renewable energy and nuclear physics; · NASA: funds space and aeronautics research. 2.1.2 Centralized Funding System Distorts Scientific Research Today, university professors are almost unable to conduct research independently without relying on external funding. Therefore, they are forced to rely on government or corporate funding, and this centralized funding model has also brought many problems to the academic community. First is the inefficiency of the funding acquisition process. Although the specific processes vary among countries and institutions, there is generally a widespread issue of being lengthy, opaque, and inefficient. Research teams need to submit large numbers of application documents and reports and undergo strict reviews by the government or corporations. For renowned labs, a grant may reach several million or even tens of millions of dollars, allowing them to avoid frequent applications for a longer period. However, this is not the case for most. For most labs, a single grant is usually only tens of thousands of dollars, meaning they need to repeatedly apply, fill out large amounts of documents, and undergo continuous reviews. Many graduate students and scholars have to spend a significant amount of time on funding applications and corporate projects rather than focusing on research. What's worse is that many projects funded by corporations have little relevance to graduate student research topics, further highlighting the inefficiency and irrationality of this system. Investing a significant amount of time in funding applications may have a payoff, but obtaining funding is not easy. According to data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the funding approval rates for 2023 and 2024 were 29% and 26%, respectively, with a median annual funding amount of only $150,000. Similarly, the success rate for funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is usually between 15% and 30%. Single-source funding often cannot meet research needs, and many scholars have to apply multiple times to sustain their research. The challenge of funding applications lies not only in low success rates but also in the crucial role of networking. Professors often collaborate with peers in their applications rather than applying independently to increase the chances of approval. Additionally, to secure corporate funding, professors frequently engage in private lobbying efforts with the funders. This reliance on networks, coupled with the opacity of the fund allocation process, makes it harder for early-career researchers to enter this system. Another significant issue is the lack of incentives for long-term research. Funding exceeding 5 years is extremely rare. According to NSF data, the majority of grants have durations of 1 to 5 years, similar to the funding patterns of other government agencies. Corporate RD project funding typically lasts only 1 to 3 years. Political factors also profoundly influence government research funding. For example, during the Trump administration, there was a significant increase in RD investment in the defense sector, whereas under Democratic administrations, funding tended to favor environmental research. Due to the fluctuation of government funding with policy changes, long-term research projects struggle to receive stable support. Corporate funding faces similar challenges. In 2022, the average tenure of a CEO in the SP 500 companies was 4.8 years, with other executives seeing similar tenure lengths. They often need to rapidly adjust their strategies based on industry and technological shifts, resulting in few long-term ongoing research projects funded by corporations. Under the pressure of a centralized funding system, researchers are forced to select projects that can deliver visible results in a short period to ensure continued funding support. This has led to a short-term orientation in academia, with only a few institutions or teams willing to undertake research projects lasting over 5 years. Furthermore, researchers tend to focus more on incremental improvements to increase their publication output rather than pursuing truly innovative breakthroughs. `Scientific research can be categorized as incremental or groundbreaking, with the former being small improvements on existing work and the latter breaking entirely new ground. `Due to the constraints of the funding model, incremental research is often easier to fund, while disruptive innovation struggles to survive. The high degree of specialization in modern science indeed makes major breakthroughs more challenging, but the centralized funding model exacerbates this issue, further stifling the potential for disruptive innovation. Some researchers may even manipulate data or exaggerate research findings. The current funding mechanism requires results to be produced in a limited time frame, which promotes academic misconduct. As a graduate student, I often hear about cases of data manipulation by students in other labs. Nature points out that the number of retracted papers in academic conferences and journals is sharply rising. 2.1.3 Do Not Misunderstand: Centralized Funding Is Inevitable It needs to be clarified that centralized funding itself is not the issue. While this model has brought about many negative effects, it is still crucial to modern science. Compared to the past, today's scientific research is more complex and expensive. A graduate student's project may easily require thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, while research in fields such as defense, aerospace, and basic physics requires an exponential increase in resources. Therefore, centralized funding is indispensable, but the issues within it must also be addressed. 2.2.1 Journal Industry Overview In the crypto industry, entities such as Tether, Circle (issuer of stablecoins), Binance, and Coinbase (centralized exchanges) dominate the market. In academia, journals are the most powerful entities, including giants like Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, the American Chemical Society (ACS), IEEE, and others. · Elsevier had a revenue of $36.7 billion in 2022, with a net profit of $25.5 billion and a profit margin of nearly 70%. · In comparison, Nvidia's profit margin in 2024 is 55%-57%. · By the first 9 months of 2024, Springer Nature had already reached a revenue of $14.4 billion, highlighting the immense scale of the academic publishing industry. The core profit models of academic journals include: · Subscription Fees: Access to journal articles usually requires a subscription or a one-time fee to access specific articles. · Article Processing Charges (APC): Authors can pay fees to make their papers open-access; otherwise, most papers are placed behind paywalls. · Copyright and Reprint Fees: In most cases, once a paper is published, the copyright belongs to the publisher, and journals monetize through educational or commercial licensing. 2.2.2 Journals: The Epicenter of Misaligned Incentives in Academia So, why are journals considered the "top predators" of the academic world? Isn't their business model just the same as the general publishing industry's logic? The answer is no. Journal's business model is extremely biased towards the publisher, rather than the author or the reader. In traditional publishing or online platforms, authors usually can share revenue with the platform, and the content can reach as wide an audience as possible. However, the core operation of academic journals is entirely in favor of the publisher's interests: · Scholars provide research results for free, but journals profit through subscription fees, page charges, copyright transfer, etc. · Even if authors pay a high APC, journals still control the distribution channels, influencing the reach of the paper. · Readers (including universities, research institutions) often need to pay high subscription fees to access cutting-edge research results. Journals play a key role in academic communication, but their profit model entirely favors the publisher, rather than the author or the academic community itself. To read papers from a specific journal, readers must pay a subscription fee or purchase single articles. However, if researchers want their papers to be open access, they need to pay high processing fees to the journal and receive no profit-sharing. It doesn't stop there—researchers not only have no right to share the revenue brought by the journal, but in most cases, the copyright of their papers is directly transferred to the journal. This means that journals can not only price freely but also repeatedly monetize this research content for business purposes. This system is highly exploitative and entirely unfair to researchers. In terms of the profit model, journals not only monopolize the channels for disseminating academic achievements but also squeeze researchers through high fees. The scale and depth of exploitation in their business model are astonishing. For example, in the field of natural sciences, one of the most well-known open-access journals—Nature Communications—authors need to pay a $6,790 article processing fee (APC) for each published paper. This fee is almost a significant portion of many researchers' annual budgets, yet the journal still does not provide any share to the researchers. The essence of academic journals has long evolved from promoting knowledge dissemination to systematic exploitation of researchers. The subscription fees for academic journals are equally staggering. While subscription prices vary by journal discipline and type, the average annual institution subscription fee for journals under the American Chemical Society (ACS) can be as high as $4,908 per journal. If an institution subscribes to all ACS journals, the cost would skyrocket to $170,000. Springer Nature's subscription fees are even higher, with an average annual fee of around $10,000 per journal, and the full journal package subscription fee reaching $630,000. Since most research institutions subscribe to multiple journals, this means that researchers and institutions face a huge subscription expense. A more serious issue is that researchers are almost compelled to publish papers in these journals to establish their academic credentials. The financial flow of the journal industry mainly relies on government and corporate research funding, creating a highly exploitative cycle: · Researchers must continually publish papers to accumulate academic achievements, apply for research funding, and advance their careers. · The funding for research mainly comes from government or corporate research grants. · The article processing charges (APC) for publication are also paid by this funding. · Institutions, to allow researchers to read these papers, also need to pay high subscription fees, which also come from government or corporate funding. Since these costs are mostly borne by research funding rather than individual researchers' contributions, researchers are less sensitive to these high expenses, giving journals unlimited room to increase prices. Ultimately, academic journals have formed a distorted profit model: charging authors high publication fees, charging readers and institutions exorbitant subscription fees, and monopolizing the copyright of papers. This system not only greatly exploits researchers but also hinders the free dissemination of knowledge, turning academic research into a thoroughly commercial business. 2.2.3 Inefficiency and Lack of Transparency in the Journal Peer Review Process The issues with journals are not only in their revenue structure but also in the inefficiency and lack of transparency in the publishing process. In my six years of academic career, having published four papers, I have encountered numerous issues, especially the inefficient submission process, lack of transparency, and a peer review system with a luck factor. The standard peer review process for journals typically includes the following steps: 1. Researchers compile their research findings into a manuscript and submit it to the target journal. 2. The journal editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and basic standards. If it does, the editor will assign two to three peer reviewers to conduct a review. 3. Peer reviewers evaluate the manuscript, provide feedback, raise issues and questions, and then make one of four recommendations: · Accept: No modifications needed, accept as is. · Minor Revision: Accept with minor changes required. · Major Revision: Accept but significant changes needed. · Reject: Manuscript is not accepted. 4. The researcher revises the paper based on the review comments, and the editor makes the final decision. While this process may seem straightforward, it is rife with inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and overreliance on subjective judgment, which can undermine the overall quality and fairness of the system. The inefficiency of the review process is a significant issue. For example, in the natural sciences and engineering, the time required to submit a paper and go through the review process is roughly as follows: · Time to receive editorial rejection: 1 week to 2 months. · Time to receive peer review comments: 3 weeks to 4 months. · Time for final decision: 3 months to 1 year. When delays occur in the review process due to journal or reviewer circumstances, or multiple review rounds are needed, publishing a paper can take over a year. For example, in a paper I submitted, the editor sent the manuscript to three reviewers, but one did not respond, necessitating the search for another reviewer, extending the review period by four months. Furthermore, if the paper is rejected during this lengthy period, the entire process must start again, with submission to another journal, meaning additional waiting and a doubling of time wasted. This inefficient and time-consuming publication process is highly disadvantageous for researchers, as during this time, similar research by other teams may have already been published. I have witnessed this situation many times, and novelty is a key element of a paper, delays of which can have serious consequences. Another issue is the shortage of peer reviewers. As mentioned earlier, submitted papers are typically evaluated by two to three peer reviewers. Whether a paper is accepted often depends on the opinions of these reviewers. While reviewers are usually experts in the relevant field and consensus on the paper's quality is usually reached through them, the review results still carry an element of luck. I have experienced an example: I once submitted a paper to a prestigious journal A, received two major comments and one minor comment, and was ultimately rejected. I then submitted the same paper to journal B, which is relatively less known, but it also rejected my paper, with one rejection and one major issue in the review comments. Interestingly, despite journal B's lower prominence, the outcome was even worse. This highlights a key issue: the evaluation of a paper relies on a small number of experts, and the selection of reviewers is entirely determined by the journal editor. This means that whether a paper is accepted actually carries a certain element of luck. For example, if three reviewers are lenient, the paper may be accepted; but if assigned to three stricter reviewers, the paper may be rejected. The problems in the journal peer review process are not only inefficiency and lack of transparency, but also include insufficient reviewer numbers, lack of incentivization, and the presence of bias in peer review. Firstly, significantly increasing the number of reviewers to achieve a fairer evaluation is not practical. For journals, adding reviewers means more communication and higher inefficiency. Therefore, while increasing reviewers may help achieve a more just review, from the journal's perspective, this approach is not cost-effective. Secondly, the lack of incentivization mechanisms in the peer review process has resulted in varying review quality. Some reviewers are able to fully grasp the content of the paper, provide insightful comments and questions. However, other reviewers do not carefully read the paper, provide information already included in the paper, or give irrelevant criticisms and comments, leading to significant revisions or straight rejections of the paper. Let me illustrate with an example from my experience. I once submitted a paper to the renowned Journal A. Despite receiving two major comments and one minor comment, my paper was still rejected. I then submitted the same paper to Journal B, which has slightly lower prestige. However, after receiving 1 rejection and 1 major comment, it was rejected again. Interestingly, although Journal B is not as prominent as Journal A, the outcome was worse. The third issue is the lack of incentivization measures in the peer review process, resulting in poor review quality. This varies among peer reviewers. Some reviewers have a thorough understanding of the paper and provide thoughtful comments and questions. However, others do not read the paper carefully, ask about information already included, or give irrelevant criticisms and comments, leading to major revisions or rejection. Unfortunately, this is quite common and can leave researchers feeling betrayed as if their efforts have been in vain. The fourth issue is the lack of transparency in the peer review process. Peer review is usually conducted anonymously to ensure fairness, with journal editors responsible for selecting reviewers. However, reviewers sometimes may identify the authors of the paper under review. This can lead to biases in the review, for example, reviewers may favor papers from their friends or collaborators, or intentionally give harsh reviews to papers from competing teams. This situation is more common than we imagine and can sometimes have a significant impact on the final outcome of a paper. 2.2.6 The Illusion of Impact Factor Lastly, I want to discuss the issue of the evaluation of citation counts and impact factors. How do we evaluate a researcher's career and academic level? Each researcher has their own unique strengths: some excel in experimental design, some are adept at identifying research directions, and others can delve deep into overlooked details. However, qualitatively assessing each researcher's strengths is nearly impossible. Therefore, the academic community relies on quantitative metrics, namely using a single number to evaluate researchers, especially citations and the H-index. Researchers with a high H-index and paper citation count are often considered more accomplished. The H-index is an indicator used to measure a researcher's productivity and impact. For example, an H-index of 10 means that the researcher has at least 10 papers, each of which has been cited at least 10 times. Ultimately, citation count remains the most important metric of assessment. So, how can researchers increase their citation count? While producing high-quality papers is the fundamental solution, choosing the right research topics is equally crucial. The more popular the research field and the more researchers there are, the more likely a paper's citation count will increase. 2.2.5 Publish or Perish Success stems from failure. Progress in any field requires failure as a stepping stone. However, in the modern scientific world, almost all papers only report successful results, while the countless failures leading to these successes are ignored and abandoned. In the fiercely competitive academic world, researchers have little incentive to report failed experiments because these failures do not benefit their careers and are often seen as a waste of time. This also reflects the "publish or perish" phenomenon in academia. To gain academic recognition and continue funding, researchers often need to publish a large number of papers. However, successful papers tend to only present results while overlooking the failures in the research, preventing many research processes from being fully presented. As a result, the academic field exhibits low tolerance for failure, instead treating outcomes as the sole measure of a researcher's value, leading to the homogenization of academic evaluation. This is also closely related to the relationship between impact factor and citation count. The academic world's evaluation of papers often overly relies on citation count and impact factor, overlooking the failures or challenges that may have been encountered during the research process. Yet, these undisclosed failures are actually an indispensable part of academic progress. 2.3 Systemic Challenges In the field of computer software, open-source projects have transformed software development by publicly sharing code and encouraging global contributions, fostering collaboration among developers, thus allowing software to be improved. However, the trajectory of scientific development has moved in the opposite direction. In the early days of science, such as the 17th century, scientists prioritized sharing knowledge, advocated for natural philosophy, and displayed an open and collaborative attitude, distancing themselves from rigid authority. For example, despite their competitive relationship, Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke still shared and critiqued each other's work through letters, collectively advancing knowledge. In contrast, modern science has become more closed off. Researchers, driven by competition to secure funding and publish in high-impact journals, often keep unpublished research confidential and strongly discourage external sharing. As a result, research labs within the same field naturally see each other as competitors, with limited avenues to learn about each other's work. Since much research builds incrementally on previously published work, competing labs are likely to be working on similar research topics. Without sharing the research process, multiple labs end up conducting parallel studies on the same subject. This creates a high-stakes, low-efficiency environment where the lab that publishes results first reaps all the credit. Researchers often find that as they near completion, similar research has already been published, rendering much of their efforts futile. In the worst cases, even within the same lab, students may withhold experimental materials or research findings from each other, fostering internal competition rather than collaboration. As open-source culture has become foundational in computer science, the modern scientific community must embrace a more open and collaborative culture to benefit a broader audience. 3. How to Fix Traditional Science? Researchers are acutely aware of these issues in the scientific community. While they recognize these problems, these challenges are deeply rooted in structural issues that individuals find hard to address. However, over the years, there have been many attempts to tackle these issues. 3.1.1 Fixing Centralized Funding Fast Grants: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Stripe's CEO, Patrick Collison, identified inefficiencies in traditional grant processes and launched the Fast Grants initiative, raising $50 million to support hundreds of projects. Funding decisions are made within 14 days, with grant amounts ranging from $10,000 to $500,000, a significant sum for researchers. Renaissance Philanthropy: Founded by Tom Kalil, a former technology policy advisor to Presidents Clinton and Obama. This nonprofit consultancy organization connects donors with high-impact scientific and technological projects and, with the support of Eric and Wendy Schmidt, operates similarly to the patronage system that once thrived among European scientists. hhmi: The Howard Hughes Medical Institute employs a unique funding model that supports individual researchers rather than specific projects. By providing long-term funding, it alleviates the pressure for short-term results, allowing researchers to focus on sustained research work. experiment.com: This is an online crowdfunding platform that allows researchers to introduce their work to the public and raise the necessary funds from individual donors. 3.1.2 Fixing Academic Journals PLOS ONE: PLOS ONE is an open-access scientific journal that anyone can freely read, download, and share articles from. It evaluates papers based on scientific validity rather than impact and is known for publishing negative, inconclusive, or invalid results. Its streamlined publishing process helps researchers quickly disseminate research findings. However, PLOS ONE charges researchers article processing fees ranging from $1000 to $5000. arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, PsyArXiv, SocArXiv: These are preprint servers that allow researchers to share their paper drafts before formal publication. They enable the rapid dissemination of research findings, claim precedence on specific topics, provide community feedback and collaboration opportunities, and offer readers free access to papers. Sci-hub: Founded by Kazakhstani programmer Alexandra Elbakyan, Sci-hub provides free access to paywalled papers. Despite being illegal in most jurisdictions and facing lawsuits from publishers like Elsevier, it has been praised for advancing free access to academic content while also criticized for legal violations. 3.1.3 Fixing Collaboration ResearchGate: This is a professional social platform where researchers can share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators. CERN: CERN is a non-profit organization involved in particle physics research, conducting large-scale experiments that are challenging for individual labs to undertake. It brings together researchers from multiple countries, funded based on each participating country's GDP contribution. 3.2 DeSci, the New Wave While the above efforts have made some progress in addressing the challenges modern science faces, they have not created enough impact to fundamentally transform the field. In recent years, with the rise of blockchain technology, a concept called Decentralized Science (DeSci) has garnered attention as a potential solution to these structural issues. So, what exactly is DeSci? Can it truly revolutionize the modern scientific ecosystem? 4. Enter DeSci 4.1 DeSci Overview DeSci, short for Decentralized Science, refers to making scientific knowledge a public good by improving funding, research, peer review, and research output sharing. It aims to create a more efficient, fair, transparent, and inclusive system. Blockchain technology plays a central role in achieving these goals through the following features: Transparency: Except for privacy networks, blockchain networks are inherently transparent, allowing anyone to view transactions. This feature enhances the transparency of project funding and peer review processes. Ownership: Blockchain assets are protected by private keys, making ownership claims easy. This feature enables researchers to monetize their data or assert intellectual property (IP) rights to leverage funded research outcomes. Incentive Mechanism: The incentive mechanism is core to blockchain networks. To encourage collaboration and active participation, token incentives can be used to reward individuals participating in various research processes. Smart Contracts: Smart contracts deployed on a neutral network execute operations based on their code definitions. They can be used to establish and automate interaction logic among participants, with transparency. 4.2 Potential Applications of DeSci As the name suggests, DeSci can be applied to various aspects of scientific research. ResearchHub categorizes the potential applications of DeSci into the following five areas: Research DAOs: These are decentralized autonomous organizations focusing on specific research topics. Through blockchain technology, they can transparently manage research planning, funding, governance voting, and project management. Publication: Blockchain can decentralize and transform the publication process entirely. Research papers, data, and code can be permanently recorded on the blockchain, ensuring their credibility, providing free access, and improving processes such as peer review through token incentives. Funding and Intellectual Property: Researchers can easily obtain global audience funding support through blockchain networks. Additionally, by tokenizing research projects, token holders can participate in project direction decisions or share future intellectual property income. Data: Blockchain can achieve secure, transparent storage, management, and sharing of research data. Infrastructure: This includes governance tools, storage solutions, community platforms, and identity systems that can be seamlessly integrated into DeSci projects. The best way to understand DeSci is to explore projects within its ecosystem and see how they address structural issues in modern science. Next, let's take a closer look at some prominent projects in the DeSci ecosystem. 5. DeSci Ecosystem 5.1 Why the Ethereum Ecosystem is the Ideal Choice for DeSci Unlike DeFi, gaming, or AI applications, DeSci projects primarily focus on the Ethereum ecosystem. This trend can be attributed to the following reasons: · Trustworthy Neutrality: Ethereum is the most neutral network among smart contract platforms. Given the nature of DeSci, which involves significant fund flows (e.g., research funding), values such as decentralization, fairness, censorship resistance, and trust are crucial. This makes Ethereum the optimal network for building DeSci projects. · Network Effects: Ethereum boasts the largest user base and liquidity in the smart contract network. Compared to other applications, DeSci, as a relatively niche field, may face fragmentation risks if projects are spread across multiple networks. This fragmentation could hinder project management due to liquidity and ecosystem-related challenges. Therefore, most DeSci projects are built on the Ethereum network to leverage Ethereum's strong network effects. · DeSci Infrastructure: Few DeSci projects are built from scratch. Instead, many projects leverage existing frameworks (such as Molecule) to accelerate development. Since most DeSci infrastructure tools are based on Ethereum, the majority of projects in this field also operate on Ethereum. Based on these reasons, the DeSci projects discussed in this article mostly belong to the Ethereum ecosystem. Next, we will explore some representative projects in each area of DeSci. 5.2.1 Molecule Molecule is a fundraising and tokenization platform for biopharma intellectual property. Researchers can raise funds from multiple individuals via blockchain, tokenize project IP, and funders can receive IP Tokens proportionate to their contributions. Molecule's decentralized fundraising platform, Catalyst, connects researchers and funders. Researchers prepare the necessary documentation and project plans, submit projects on the platform, and funders support these proposals with ETH funding. Once the fundraising is complete, IP-NFTs and IP Tokens are issued, and funders can claim these tokens based on their contributions. An IP NFT represents a tokenized version of project intellectual property on the blockchain, combining two legal agreements into one smart contract. The first legal agreement is the research agreement signed between researchers and funders. This agreement includes terms such as research scope, deliverables, timeline, budget, confidentiality, intellectual property and data ownership, publication, results disclosure, licensing, and patent conditions. The second legal agreement is the assignment agreement, transferring the research agreement to the IP NFT holder, ensuring that the rights of the current IP NFT holder can be transferred to a new holder. IP Tokens represent partial governance rights over intellectual property. Token holders can participate in key research decisions and access exclusive information. While IP Tokens do not guarantee revenue sharing from the research, depending on the intellectual property holder, future commercialization profits may be distributed to IP Token holders. The price of IP Tokens is determined by the Catalyst Bonding Curve, reflecting the relationship between token supply and price. As more tokens are issued, their price increases. This mechanism incentivizes early contributors by allowing them to acquire tokens at a lower cost. Here are some cases of successful fundraising through Molecule: Oslo University's Square Lab: The Square Lab researches aging and Alzheimer's disease. The lab received support from VitaDAO through Molecule's IP-NFT framework to identify and characterize new drug candidates for activating mitochondrial autophagy, which has a positive impact on Alzheimer's research. Artan Bio: Artan Bio focuses on tRNA-related research. Through Molecule's IP-NFT framework, it received $91,300 in funding from the VitaDAO community. 5.2.2 Bio.xyz Bio.xyz is a curation and liquidity protocol for decentralized science (DeSci), similar to an incubator supporting BioDAO. Bio.xyz's goals include: ·Plan, create, and accelerate new BioDAO-funded scientific projects on-chain. ·Provide ongoing funding and liquidity for BioDAO and on-chain biotech assets. ·Standardize BioDAO frameworks, tokenomics, and data/product suites. ·Generation and commercialization of scientific intellectual property (IP) and data. BIO token holders can vote to decide which new BioDAOs join the ecosystem. Once a BioDAO is approved to join the BIO ecosystem, voting-supported token holders can participate in the initial private token sale. This process is similar to an approved seed round. The governance token of the approved BioDAO is paired with the BIO token and added to a liquidity pool, addressing BioDAO's concerns regarding governance token liquidity (e.g., VITA/BIO). Additionally, Bio.xyz also operates a bio/acc rewards program providing BIO token rewards to BioDAOs to help them achieve key milestones. Furthermore, the BIO token serves as a meta-governance token among multiple BioDAOs, enabling BIO holders to participate in the governance of various BioDAOs. Moreover, the BIO network provides $100,000 in funding for incubated BioDAOs, acquiring 6.9% of the BioDAO's token supply for the liquidity pool. This increases the protocol's assets under management (AUM), thereby enhancing the value of the BIO token. Bio.xyz leverages Molecule's IP NFT and IP Tokens framework to manage and own IP. For example, VitaDAO successfully issued IP Tokens such as VitaRNA and VITA-FAST within the Bio ecosystem. Below is a list of research DAOs currently incubated through Bio.xyz, which will be discussed in detail: ·Cerebrum DAO: Focused on preventing neurodegenerative diseases. ·PsyDAO: Dedicated to advancing consciousness evolution through safe, accessible psychedelic experiences. ·cryoDAO: Contributing to cryopreservation research projects. ·AthenaDAO: Committed to driving women's health research. ·ValleyDAO: Supporting synthetic biology research. ·HairDAO: Collaborating with others to develop new methods for treating hair loss. ·VitaDAO: Focused on research related to human lifespan. In summary, Bio.xyz is planning BioDAO and providing a token framework, liquidity services, funding, and incubation support. As the IP of BioDAO in the ecosystem is successfully commercialized, the value of Bio.xyz's funding pool will increase, creating a virtuous cycle. 5.3.1 VitaDAO When mentioning the most well-known research DAO, VitaDAO is often the first to come to people's minds. Its reputation stems from being an early DeSci project and receiving lead investment from Pfizer Ventures in 2023. VitaDAO funds projects dedicated to longevity and aging research, having supported over 24 projects with funding exceeding $4.2 million. In return, VitaDAO receives IP NFTs or company equity and operates IP NFTs using the Molecule.xyz framework. VitaDAO provides transparency through blockchain, making its funding pool publicly visible. The pool's value is approximately $44 million, including around $2.3 million in equity and $29 million in tokenized IP assets. VITA token holders decide the direction of the DAO through governance votes and can access various health services. Noteworthy projects supported by VitaDAO include VitaRNA and VITA-FAST. The IP of both projects has been tokenized and is actively traded, with VitaRNA having a market value of around $13 million and VITA-FAST's market value at $24 million. Both projects hold regular meetings with VitaDAO to update on their progress. VitaRNA: VitaRNA is an IP Token project led by the biotech company Artan Bio. The project received funding in June 2023 and released an IP NFT in January 2024, breaking it down into IP Tokens. The project's innovative research focuses on inhibiting arginine nonsense mutations, particularly the CGA codon, which is vital in proteins associated with DNA damage, neurodegenerative diseases, and tumor suppression. VITA-FAST: VITA-FAST is an IP Token project from Viktor Korolchuk's lab at Newcastle University. The project focuses on discovering new autophagy inducers. Autophagy is a cellular process, the decline of which is a factor in biological aging. Therefore, the project explores anti-aging and related disease treatment by stimulating autophagy, ultimately aiming to enhance human healthspan. 5.3.2 HairDAO HairDAO is an open-source research network where patients and researchers collaborate to develop methods for treating hair loss. According to data from the Scandinavian Biotech Lab, hair loss affects 85% of men and 50% of women in their lifetime. However, currently available treatments in the market include methods such as Minoxidil, Finasteride, and Dutasteride. Notably, Minoxidil was FDA approved in 1988, while Finasteride received approval in 1997. Despite the approval of these treatment methods, their effects are limited, often only able to slow down or temporarily stop hair loss rather than cure it. The development of hair loss treatments has been slow due to: · Complex Causes: Hair loss is influenced by various factors, including genetics, hormonal changes, and immune reactions, making the development of effective targeted therapies challenging. · High Development Costs: Drug development requires significant time and investment, but since hair loss is not life-threatening, research funding priorities for it are usually lower. HairDAO incentivizes patients to share their treatment experiences and data in the application, rewarding them with HAIR governance tokens. HAIR token holders can participate in DAO governance votes, enjoy discounts on HairDAO hair care products, and stake tokens for faster access to confidential research data. 5.3.3 Others CryoDAO: CryoDAO focuses on cryopreservation research, with a funding pool exceeding $7 million and having funded five projects. CRYO token holders can participate in governance voting and have the opportunity for early or exclusive access to funded research breakthroughs and data. ValleyDAO: ValleyDAO aims to address climate challenges through funding synthetic biology research. Synthetic biology, which uses organisms to sustainably synthesize nutrients, fuels, and drugs, is a key technology for combating climate change. ValleyDAO has funded multiple projects, including research by Professor Rodrigo Ledesma-Amaro at Imperial College London. CerebrumDAO: CerebrumDAO focuses on brain health research, particularly Alzheimer's disease prevention. Its Snapshot page showcases proposals from various projects seeking funding. Decisions are made through decentralized voting by DAO members. 5.4.1 ResearchHub ResearchHub is a leading DeSci publishing platform aimed to be the "GitHub for Science." Founded by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Patrick Joyce, ResearchHub successfully raised a $5 million Series A funding in June 2023, led by Open Source Software Capital. ResearchHub is a tool for open publication and discussion of scientific research, incentivizing researchers through its native RSC token for publishing, peer review, and curation. Its key features include: Funding Users can create funding requests for specific tasks from other ResearchHub users using the RSC token. Funding types include: · Peer Review: Request for peer review of a manuscript. · Answer Questions: Request for answering specific questions. Under the "Funds" tab, researchers can upload research proposals and receive RSC token funding from users. The Journal 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, allowing access only to abstracts written by others. The Hub section is where users can create and join research groups to facilitate discussions on specific research topics. RH Journal is ResearchHub's in-house journal with an efficient peer review process completed in 14 days and decisions made within 21 days. Additionally, it provides incentive mechanisms for peer reviewers, addressing the common incentive misalignment issues in traditional peer review systems. The RSC token is an ERC-20 token designed for the ResearchHub ecosystem, with a total supply of 1 billion tokens. RSC tokens drive user engagement and support ResearchHub in becoming a fully decentralized open platform. Their uses include: · Governance voting · Tipping other users · Bounty programs · Incentives for peer reviewers · Rewards for orchestrating research papers 5.4.2 ScieNFT ScieNFT is a decentralized preprint server where researchers can mint their work as NFTs. The published formats can range from simple charts and ideas to datasets, artworks, methods, and even negative results. Preprint data is stored using decentralized storage solutions like IPFS and Filecoin, while the 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 lack of clear benefits of owning these NFTs. Additionally, the market lacks effective curation. 5.4.3 deScier deScier is a decentralized scientific journal platform. Unlike publishers like Elsevier or Springer Nature managing multiple journals, deScier hosts various journals. All papers retain 100% of the researchers' copyright, and peer review is part of the process. However, as described below, a significant limitation is the lower number of papers published in the journals and slower upload speeds. 5.5.1 Data Lake Data Lake software enables researchers to integrate various user recruitment channels, track their effectiveness, manage consent forms, and conduct prescreening surveys while giving users control over their data. Researchers can share and manage patient data consent easily between third parties. The Data Lake Chain, based on Arbitrum Orbit's L3 network, is used to manage patient consent. 5.5.2 Welshare Health In traditional medical research, the most significant bottleneck is the delay in recruiting clinical trial participants and a lack of patient participation. Additionally, while patients' medical data is highly valuable, there is also a risk of misuse. Welshare aims to address these challenges through Web3 technology. Patients can securely manage their data, monetize it to earn income, and receive personalized medical services. Conversely, medical researchers can more easily access diverse datasets, facilitating their research. Through an application built on the Base Network, users can selectively provide data to earn in-app reward points, which can later be converted into cryptocurrency or fiat currency. 5.5.3 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 medical consultations, combining medical databases, AI technology, and assistance from healthcare professionals. During this process, patient data is securely stored on the blockchain. 5.6.1 Ceramic Ceramic is a decentralized event streaming protocol that enables developers to create decentralized databases, distributed computation pipelines, authenticated data streams, and more. These features make it ideal for DeSci projects, helping them leverage Ceramic as a decentralized database: · Data on the Ceramic network is permissionless, allowing researchers to share and collaborate on data. · Actions on the Ceramic network such as research papers, citations, and reviews are represented as "Ceramic streams." Each stream can only be modified by the original author's account, ensuring intellectual property traceability. · Ceramic also provides infrastructure for verifiable claims, enabling DeSci projects to adopt its reputation infrastructure. 5.6.2 bloXberg bloXberg is a blockchain infrastructure established under the leadership of the Max Planck Digital Library in Germany, with participants including ETH Zurich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and IT University of Copenhagen, among other renowned research institutions. bloXberg aims to advance scientific progress through various processes in innovative scientific research, such as research data management, peer review, and intellectual property protection. By leveraging blockchain to decentralize these processes, it enhances the transparency and efficiency of research. Researchers can securely share and collaborate on research data using blockchain. Is DeSci Really a Panacea? We have explored the structural issues in modern science and how DeSci addresses these problems. But hold on a moment. Can DeSci truly transform the scientific landscape and play a central role as the crypto community claims? I don't think so. However, I do believe that DeSci has the potential to play a supportive role in certain areas. 6.1 What Blockchain Can and Cannot Solve Blockchain is not magic; it cannot solve all problems. We must clearly delineate what blockchain can and cannot solve. 6.1.1 Funding DeSci is poised to excel in funding under the following conditions: Small-scale funding Research with commercial potential The funding scale in the scientific community varies greatly, ranging from tens of thousands to millions or even billions of dollars. For large projects requiring substantial funding, centralized funding from governments or corporations is inevitable. However, small-scale projects can obtain funding through the DeSci platform. For researchers conducting small-scale projects, cumbersome paperwork and lengthy funding review processes can be overwhelming. In such cases, the DeSci funding platform provides rapid and efficient funding support, making it highly attractive. However, to increase the likelihood of a research project receiving funding through the DeSci platform, it must have a reasonable commercialization outlook, such as through patents or technology transfer. This provides a motive for public investment in the project. However, most modern scientific research is not focused on commercialization but rather aims to enhance a nation's or corporation's technological competitiveness. In conclusion, fields suitable for funding on the DeSci platform include biotechnology, healthcare, and pharmaceuticals. Successful research in these areas has high commercial potential. Furthermore, while ultimate commercialization requires substantial funding, the initial stages of research typically require less funding than other fields, making the DeSci platform a favorable option for capital raising. I doubt whether DeSci can support long-term research. Although a few researchers may receive support from altruistic and voluntary funders to pursue long-term research, this culture is unlikely to be widely disseminated in the scientific community. Even if the DeSci platform utilizes blockchain, there is no inherent causation suggesting they can sustain long-term funding. If attempting to forcibly link blockchain with long-term research, a possible consideration could be milestone-based funding through smart contracts. 6.1.2 Journal Ideally, the area where DeSci is most likely to bring innovation is academic journals. Through smart contracts and token incentives, DeSci has the potential to restructure the journal-driven profit model into a researcher-centric model. However, in reality, this will be a challenge. For researchers, a key factor in their career is publishing papers. In academia, researchers' capabilities are primarily judged by the journals they publish in, citation counts, and h-index. Human nature instinctively relies on authority, a fact that has remained unchanged from prehistoric times to today. For example, an unknown researcher can become a star overnight by publishing an article in top journals such as Nature, Science, or Cell. Although ideally researchers' capability assessment should focus on qualitative aspects, this evaluation heavily relies on peer recommendations, thus almost unavoidably depends on quantitative assessment. It is precisely because of this that journals hold enormous power. Despite monopolizing the profit model, researchers still have to comply. To give DeSci journals more influence, they must establish authority, but achieving the reputation accumulated over a century by traditional journals through token incentives alone is extremely challenging. While DeSci may not be able to completely change the journal landscape, it can undoubtedly make contributions in certain areas, such as peer review and negative results. As mentioned earlier, peer reviewers currently have little incentive, which reduces the quality and efficiency of reviews. Providing token incentives to reviewers can improve review quality and raise journal standards. Furthermore, token incentives can drive the development of a network of journals specialized in publishing negative results. Since reputation has less impact on journals specialized in negative results, the combination of token rewards will motivate researchers to publish their findings in such journals. 6.1.3 Collaboration In my view, blockchain is unlikely to significantly address the intense competition in modern science. Unlike in the past, the number of researchers today far exceeds that of the past, where every achievement directly impacts career progress, making competition inevitable. Expecting blockchain to solve the overall collaboration issue in the scientific community is unrealistic. On the other hand, in small-scale research DAOs, blockchain can effectively promote collaboration. Researchers in DAOs share a common vision through token-aligned incentives and record achievements on the blockchain through timestamps to gain recognition. I hope to see not only the number and activities of research DAOs grow in the biotechnology field but also expand into other disciplines. 7. Final Thoughts: DeSci Needs a Bitcoin Moment Modern science faces many structural challenges, and DeSci provides a compelling narrative to address these issues. While DeSci may not be able to completely transform the entire scientific ecosystem, it can gradually expand through those who find value in it, including researchers and users. Ultimately, we may see a balance between TradSci and DeSci. Just as Bitcoin was once considered a toy for computer geeks but now has major traditional financial institutions entering the market, I hope DeSci will also receive long-term recognition like Bitcoin and experience its own "Bitcoin moment." Original Article Link: Link to Original Article
Filled orders
Delivery scenarios
