Recently, some readers have left messages asking about DeSci-related questions.

I remember the last time I shared my thoughts on DeSci was last year. Since then, although I haven't shared my views on this track in my articles, I have continued to pay attention to it.

When I first shared my views on the DeSci track, I wrote a point (in essence):

Projects initiated through fundraising in this field are different from those in other tracks; they are likely to take a long time to see results and actual outcomes. Generally speaking, it is not easy to see significant effects within two years. Such projects may not easily generate hype or make the track popular.

Over this period, we have seen the results; those DeSci projects that were booming last year are now basically in a lukewarm state.

Looking at the projects released in the current DeSci ecosystem, there are basically two characteristics:

First, they are primarily focused on biotechnology/medical technology;

Second, these projects tend to lean towards the scientific field.

Both of these characteristics have a significant impact on the development of the entire ecosystem.

Let’s discuss the first one.

We know that biotechnology/medical technology ultimately needs to go through a lengthy process to enter the practical stage and generate economic value, such as undergoing multiple phases of clinical trials and approval from the U.S. FDA. Even if these projects in DeSci do not have to go through such complex processes, they still need to undergo scrutiny from regulatory agencies, which is quite time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Therefore, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding when these biotechnology/medical-related projects in the current DeSci ecosystem will yield results and how significant those results will be.

Now, let’s talk about the second point.

I generally categorize projects into three types: scientific field, engineering field, and application field.

Scientific research in the scientific and engineering fields is mainly conducted in universities, research institutions, and large enterprises. They require massive long-term funding. They aim to solve problems that plague the scientific and engineering fields, especially theoretical issues. Even if this type of research produces some results, many may not be able to be transformed into products and services in the short term.

In contrast, application projects do not aim to solve problems in the scientific and engineering fields; instead, they directly utilize existing results and answers from these fields to create products or services. The problems they aim to solve are far less complex than those in the scientific and engineering fields.

Among these three categories, only projects in the application field can yield results relatively quickly.

Since the launch of Ethereum in 2015, we have experienced various fundraising methods in the crypto ecosystem, whether ICOs, IEOs, or IDOs; the projects they funded are essentially application field projects.

The reason these projects have succeeded and why these fundraising methods have generated wealth effects is fundamentally because some of these projects have indeed successfully launched and operated in the short term.

Without the emergence of these successful projects, no amount of boasting or bubble-blowing would be able to create hype.

However, a significant portion of the projects currently being funded in the DeSci ecosystem precisely have deadlocks in one or two of the points mentioned above: either they may face long cycles in biotechnology/medical projects; or they lean towards scientific and engineering projects, making it very difficult to see applicable and value-generating results in the short term.

Recently, some leading projects in this track, such as Bio, are striving to create conditions to develop the ecosystem. Bio is trying to create a fundraising platform modeled after Virtual to allow projects to raise funds on it.

It is hard to say how effective this initiative will be, as the reasons remain the same as mentioned above. It can temporarily drive up the price of project tokens and stimulate speculative interest in the track, but if there is no subsequent progress in the projects over a slightly longer period, the hype in the track will decline again.

However, I will continue to pay attention to this track and casually participate in projects I like. At least at this stage, it feels more like a public welfare track, somewhat similar to Gitcoin's community donations.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。