The DeSci concept is hot, but does it really need Meme coins?

The article explores the intersection of DeSci (Decentralized Science) and meme coins, questioning their mutual necessity and potential impact. Here’s a breakdown of key points:

Meme Coins vs. DeSci: Meme coins thrive as a "cyber lottery" for speculative gains, lacking inherent positive externalities. DeSci, however, aims to disrupt traditional scientific research through decentralization, open-source collaboration, and new funding models.
Narrative Hype: Projects like Pump Science and SciHub-related meme coins have sparked attention, but their long-term value is debated. Andrew Kang’s comparison of "2024 DeSci = 2019 DeFi" fuels optimism, though skepticism remains.
Attention Economy: Meme coins rely on viral narratives, and DeSci’s association with them could boost visibility. However, this risks diluting DeSci’s mission with speculative noise.
Institutional Backing: Despite support from Coinbase, Binance, and figures like Vitalik, DeSci struggles for mainstream funding, often seen as a "social currency" for elites rather than a transformative force.
Disruptive Potential: DeSci challenges scientific power structures via DAOs and new collaboration models, but lacks DeFi’s financial levers (composability, leverage), limiting its ability to generate massive asset creation.
Conclusion: While DeSci offers hope for innovation, its path diverges from DeFi’s financial mechanics, relying more on cultural and systemic shifts than speculative hype.

Author: NingNing

Does DeSci need MeMe coin? Does MeMe coin need DeSci? Can DeSci really become a disruptive innovation like DeFi?

During this period of time, I lurked in the unconscious abyss of on-chain PVP and observed for a long time the interpretation and development of DeSci narrative in the phenomenal world:

From the http://Pump.fun copycat Pump Science launching the longevity drug $RIF $URO meme coins for on-chain PK, to @0xAA_Science igniting the Scihub-related memecoin attention war, to the OG DeSci projects such as Bio Protocol, Vita DAO, and ResearchHub, and finally today when the market thought that the DeSci narrative was about to become a thing of the past, Andrew Kang made a call and invented a narrative: 2024 DeSci = 2019 DeFi.

Fantastic new narratives such as "open source scientific papers" and "reshaping the scientific research paradigm" have made some people in the scientific research and crypto circles visibly excited. For those of us who have been immersed in left-wing ideology for many years without knowing it, the MeMe coin with positive externalities is full of justice.

But the question is, does MeMe coin really need positive externalities like DeSci? I agree with Toly and CryptoWay that MeMe coin does not need positive externalities. Its primary function is the cyber lottery of the 2020s, which is to sell extreme volatility to young people who dream of getting rich overnight, and to give the P youngsters born in the Z generation a chance to participate in wealth distribution.

Giving a ticket a high value and meaning is what China Sports Lottery and Welfare Lottery do. Doing so will eventually attract many ignorant people to pay IQ tax, making the director (dealer)'s pockets fatter, but there is no real positive externality.

But another fact is that meme coin trading is a typical attention tokenization market, and therefore obeys the laws of communication. A good narrative (whether it is a positive externality narrative or cult culture) is a good social media meme virus. From this perspective, DeSci is not bad, and it is a kind of honor market collusion.

So, does DeSci need meme coins? To be more precise, does DeSci need the sudden wealth effect and market attention brought by meme coins? The answer is yes.

As an unpopular track, although it has the endorsement and investment of institutions such as Coinbase, Binance, Pfizer, as well as Brain Armstrong, CZ, and Vitalik, the DeSci project has always been regarded by the market as a social currency for bigwigs (for the need to show off), and is not favored and allocated by mainstream market funds (does anyone still remember the ReFi narrative that Celo created in the last cycle?).

Finally, can DeSci really become a disruptive innovation like DeFi? There is a little hope. Here I would like to quote Popper's philosophy of science. Science is not only about truth, but also about power. It is also a kind of religious power of the scientific community, which attaches great importance to orthodoxy and academic tradition.

Whether it is scientific research DAO, Pump Science, or the pirate-style attack mentioned in Toly's tweet, they are all trying to challenge and innovate the existing power structure of the scientific community through new organizational methods, new fundraising and donation paradigms, and new ways of collaboration.

Although it is just a spark, it can give people warmth and hope on a cold winter night.

But to be honest, DeSci does not have the same high financial attributes as DeFi. It lacks the two powerful tools of composability (Lego stacking) and circular leverage. It is difficult for DeSci to create new assets of 100 billion yuan out of thin air like DeFi did in the past.