Meme coins do not require positive externalities; their first principle is the cyber lottery of the 2020s.
Written by: NingNing
Does DeSci need meme coins? Do meme coins need DeSci? Can DeSci really become a disruptive innovation like DeFi?
During this time lurking in the unconscious abyss of on-chain PVP, I have observed the interpretation and unfolding of the DeSci narrative in the phenomenal world for a long time:
From the imitation of Pump Science at http://Pump.fun launching the longevity drug $RIF $URO meme coin for on-chain PK, to @0xAA_Science igniting the attention war of Scihub-related memecoins, to OG DeSci projects like Bio Protocol, Vita DAO, and ResearchHub blooming anew, and finally today when the market thinks the DeSci narrative is becoming a thing of the past, Andrew Kang made a call and invented a narrative: 2024 DeSci = 2019 DeFi.
The new narratives such as "open-source scientific papers" and "reconstructing scientific research paradigms" have made some individuals straddling the research and crypto circles visibly excited. From the perspective of us old-timers who have been immersed in leftist ideology for years without realizing it, meme coins with positive externalities seem to be full of a sense of justice.
But the question is, do meme coins really need positive externalities like DeSci? I tend to agree with Toly and the views of crypto veterans; meme coins do not need positive externalities; their first principle is the cyber lottery of the 2020s, which is to sell extreme volatility to young people fantasizing about overnight wealth, giving the P generation born in the Z era a chance to participate in wealth distribution.
Assigning lofty value and meaning to a lottery ticket is the approach taken by Chinese sports lottery and welfare lottery. In the end, this will attract many clueless individuals to pay an IQ tax, only to line the pockets of the director (the house) without any real positive externalities.
Another fact is that meme coin trading is a typical attention-tokenized market, thus obeying the laws of communication. A good narrative (whether it’s a positive externality narrative or Cult culture) is a good social media viral meme. From this perspective, DeSci is not bad; it is a kind of honor market collusion.
So, does DeSci need meme coins? To be precise, does DeSci need the wealth effect and market attention brought by meme coins? The answer is yes.
As a niche track, although there are endorsements and investments from institutions like Coinbase, Binance, Pfizer, and figures like Brain Armstrong, CZ, and Vitalik, DeSci projects have always been regarded by the market as social currency for the elite (a show-off demand), and are not favored or allocated by mainstream market funds (who still remembers Celo's ReFi narrative in the last cycle?).
In the end, can DeSci really become a disruptive innovation like DeFi? There is a glimmer of hope. Here, I would like to quote Popper's philosophy of science: science is not only about truth but also about power, and it is a kind of religious power of the scientific community, particularly valuing the lineage and academic traditions.
Whether it's research DAOs, Pump Science, or the pirate-style plundering mentioned in Toly's tweet, they are all attempting to challenge and innovate the existing power structures of the scientific community through new organizational methods, new fundraising and donation paradigms, and new collaboration methods.
Though it is a small spark, it can bring warmth and hope on a cold winter night.
But to be honest, DeSci does not have as high a financial attribute as DeFi; it lacks the two powerful tools of composability (like building with Lego) and circular leverage, making it difficult for DeSci to create new assets worth billions out of thin air like DeFi did back then.