TL;DR
Science is a field where crypto incentives make sense: trust in our bureaucratic and inefficient scientific establishment is wavering. We have the tools now to decentralize and monetize this compromised field. Lots of DeSci ecosystems have sprung up that allow communities to fund researchers, and to protect and monetize their findings.
Just reflect for a bit on the following questions about our society’s current way of managing the scientific process.
- Why can’t you access a lot of scientific papers, even though they are funded with taxpayer money?
- Why is research funding a top-down endeavor, overseen by small groups of government decision-makers? Could private funding not lead to more effective capital allocation?
- Why is tenure for researchers so dependent on peer-reviewed papers that get a lot of citations? Isn’t this metric gamed?
- Why is the scientific process not more permissionless? Why can’t more people participate, even if they lack certain paperwork or access to a circle of peers?
A Distorted Monopoly
We have a ‘market’ of science that is distorted by top-down decision making, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and incentive schemes that are reminiscent of the government monopoly on money creation.
Scientists – only humans after all, who have to pay their mortgage – face intense competition and career pressures, which might lead them to prioritize activities that increase their citation count over those that contribute more significantly to scientific knowledge.
In the same way that a government’s money monopoly distorts the price signal of the free markets, the current scientific system distorts the creation and free flow of new knowledge.
There are more problems. Why are scientists not rewarded more than they are now (another pressing issue) for publishing negative results? Currently, there is not enough research being done trying to verify/disprove prior research – a core element of the scientific process is under threat, as this kind of research isn’t ‘sexy’ and it doesn’t get you citations and hence funding.
More in general, why are scientists not more rewarded for the value they bring to society? Can’t scientists become business leaders in the way that Bezos and Musk are? A precondition is that science itself would become a business sector. If so, it could create a new class of ‘scientist entrepreneurs.’ This shift would recognize and reward scientists not just for their contributions to knowledge but also for their ability to generate economic value from their discoveries.
Introducing: DeSci
Are you a lover of scienceee…? Let’s dream a bit.
We can see a future where…
- Science is auditable and reproducible, with public data available for anyone to verify and replicate findings
- The scientific process is more efficient and reliable, potentially unlocking groundbreaking innovations.
- Barriers of entry are low: people worldwide can contribute to scientific progress, regardless of their geographical location or institutional affiliation.
- Researchers will be properly rewarded for their endeavors, in terms of intellectual property.
- So, better capital allocation and second is to encourage risk-taking.
I summary, the scientific research system, much like a blockchain, needs mechanisms to resist corruption and align incentives with truth and…
Erik started as a freelance writer around the time Satoshi was brewing on the whitepaper.
As a crypto investor, he is class of 2020. More of a holder than a trader, but never shy to experiment with new protocols.
