Author: 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 PVP on the chain, I have observed for a while the narrative of DeSci and its interpretation and unfolding in the phenomenal world:
From the on-chain PK of the meme coin $RIF $URO launched by http://Pump.fun imitating Pump Science, to @0xAA_Science igniting the attention war of Scihub-related memecoins, then to OG DeSci projects like Bio Protocol, Vita DAO, ResearchHub blooming again, and finally, when the market thought the DeSci narrative would become a thing of the past, Andrew Kang made a call to invent a narrative: 2024 DeSci = 2019 DeFi.
Fantastic new narratives like 'open-source scientific papers' and 'redefining scientific research paradigms' have visibly excited some individuals straddling both the research community and the crypto circle. To us old-timers, who have been immersed in leftist ideology for years without realizing it, meme coins with positive externalities seem 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 crypto Veda's viewpoint that meme coins do not need positive externalities; their primary nature is the cyber lottery of the 2020s, selling extreme volatility to young people fantasizing about getting rich overnight, giving the new generation born in Z times a chance to participate in wealth distribution.
Endowing a lottery ticket with lofty value and meaning is the approach of China's sports lottery and welfare lottery. Doing so will ultimately attract many clueless simpletons to pay their IQ tax, making the director (the dealer) richer without any real positive externality.
But another fact is that meme coin trading is a typical attention-tokenized market, thus obeying the laws of communication studies. A good narrative (whether it is a positive externality narrative or Cult culture) is a good social media viral meme. From this perspective, DeSci is not bad; it is a conspiracy of honor in the market.
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 institutions like Coinbase, Binance, Pfizer, and endorsements and investments from figures like Brian Armstrong, CZ, and Vitalik, DeSci projects have always been regarded by the market as social currency for the elite (a demand for show-off), and they are not favored or allocated by mainstream market funds (who still remembers Celo's ReFi narrative in the last cycle?).
Finally, can DeSci really become a disruptive innovation like DeFi? There is a glimmer of hope. Here I quote Popper's philosophy of science: science is not just about truth; it is also about power, and it is a kind of religious power of the scientific community, particularly emphasizing the lineage and academic tradition.
Whether it is scientific 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 structure of the scientific community through new organizational methods, new fundraising and donation paradigms, and new collaboration methods.
Though a small spark, it can provide warmth and hope on a cold winter night.
But to be honest, DeSci does not have as high financial attributes as DeFi, lacking the two powerful tools of composability (stacking Lego) and cyclical leverage. It is difficult for DeSci to create a new asset worth 100 billion out of thin air like DeFi did back in the day.