DeSci 能否解决科研资助的「破窗效应」?

深潮Publicado em 2025-08-11Última atualização em 2025-08-12

DeSci(去中心化科学)本质上是把加密货币的理念应用到科研领域。

撰文:Thejaswini M A

编译:Saoirse,Foresight News

我有个朋友,花了整整七个月时间撰写科研基金申请。

七个月啊,这比不少人筹备婚礼的时间还长,压力恐怕更是有过之而无不及。她本是一位才华横溢的癌症治疗研究员,却把更多精力耗在筹集资金上,而非真正的科研工作。

整个体系完全本末倒置。做研究需要资金,可拿资金却得先证明研究一定成功 —— 但不做研究,又怎能证明它会成功呢?

反观有些事,简直离谱:某个 YouTube 博主发起「数米粒」众筹,一个周末就筹到 10 万美元。这对比实在太讽刺了。

如今在加密领域,一种名为 DeSci(去中心化科学)的运动正在兴起,试图用加密货币和区块链技术革新科研资助模式。

先别急着不屑,听完你可能会改观,这法子或许真能行得通。

现行体系到底有多糟?

传统科研资助的流程是这样的:研究者撰写详尽的研究方案,提交给政府机构或企业,然后等待 6 到 18 个月才能收到回复。大多数申请会被驳回,即便获批,也附带一堆限制条件,导致研究者花在文书工作上的时间比做研究还多。

这套流程的核心是「降低风险」,听起来挺合理,可问题在于:突破性发现本质上都是有风险的。从抗生素到互联网,那些最重大的科学突破,最初往往都是评审委员会不会资助的「冷门方向」。

还有论文发表的问题:研究者必须在昂贵的学术期刊上发表成果,这些期刊收费高得离谱,还将研究成果设置付费墙。结果就是,纳税人掏钱资助的研究,纳税人自己却看不着。

最终,优秀的研究者把数年光阴耗在官僚流程里,而非解决实际问题。重要的研究被拖延,甚至胎死腹中,而通过纳税支撑了大部分基础研究的公众,却被隔绝在自己买单的科研成果之外。

DeSci 登场

DeSci(去中心化科学)本质上是把加密货币的理念应用到科研领域:研究者不必再向评审委员会「乞讨」资金,而是可以直接向关心其研究的人众筹;研究成果不再被付费墙封锁,而是存放在公共区块链上,任何人都能查阅。

当以太坊联合创始人 Vitalik Buterin 和前币安 CEO 赵长鹏开始在公开场合谈论这个概念时,DeSci 获得了广泛关注。要知道,当加密领域的大佬们聚焦某件事时,往往意味着相关基础设施已具备落地的条件。

具体运作模式是这样的:研究者发行代表其项目的代币,人们通过购买代币为研究提供资金,若研究成功并产生盈利性成果,代币持有者就能分享收益。

这已不是理论空想,不少企业正在为去中心化科学搭建实实在在的基础设施。

以该领域的重要参与者 BIO Protocol 为例,它曾获得币安实验室的支持,资金实力雄厚。BIO 打造了所谓的「BioDAOs」,本质上是众筹生物技术研究的投资社群。不再是少数富豪决定哪些癌症疗法值得开发,而是成千上万的人可以联合出资,并投票决定研究方向。

还有专注长寿研究的 Molecule 和 VitaDAO,它们将知识产权代币化:当研究者取得一定成果时,所有权会分配给所有资助者。目前它们支持的项目包括纽卡斯尔大学的衰老研究和哥本哈根大学的长寿研究。

资金规模也在不断增长。这些平台已处理数百万美元的科研资助,部分单个项目通过代币销售筹到数十万美元。虽然与传统资助相比仍显渺小,但增长速度惊人。

@HCCapital

越深入思考 DeSci,就越觉得它意义非凡。科学研究本就是协作的过程,研究者在前人成果上探索、共享数据、同行评审,而区块链技术恰恰为这种透明协作而设计的。

传统资助体系催生了扭曲的激励机制:研究者为拿经费,不得不夸大研究的确定性,这反而阻碍了对「不确定但可能有突破」方向的探索。DeSci 则扭转了这一点。它奖励研究者分享所有数据,包括失败的实验,因为这些可能帮其他人少走弯路。

还有个好处是,能让全球研究者都参与进来。尼日利亚的研究者有好想法,无需背靠西方大学或资助机构,也能从全球筹到资金。这对科学进步的民主化意义重大。

而且透明度与生俱来:当研究通过区块链代币获得资助时,所有人都能清楚看到资金的去向,无需再猜测经费是用在了实际研究上,还是成了行政开销。

风险与挑战

当然,风险也不容忽视。最大的问题在于质量控制。传统的同行评审尽管存在种种缺陷,但确实能筛除一些垃圾研究。在去中心化体系里,如何避免人们资助那些明显不靠谱的科研项目?

波动性也是现实难题。如果一个五年期的癌症研究项目靠加密代币融资,万一代币价格暴跌 90%,该怎么办?长期研究需要稳定的资金支持。

监管不确定性同样存在。多数国家在医学研究、药物开发和知识产权方面有复杂规定,代币化研究如何融入现有法律框架,目前还不明确。

说实话,多数科学家并非加密领域的「原住民」,要求他们突然变成通证经济学和 DAO 治理专家,实在强人所难。

总结

尽管问题不少,DeSci 的发展势头却不容忽视。相关基础设施日益完善,资金投入不断增长,而传统科研资助体系却每况愈下。当资助机构要用 18 个月审批紧急研究的经费,而加密众筹几天就能完成时,效率差距显而易见。

早期项目多集中在生物技术和长寿研究领域,这很合理,这些领域有明确的商业潜力:如果资助的研究催生了新药,代币持有者就能分享利润。但这种模式其实适用于任何最终能创造价值的研究。

我认为我们正处于一项重大事业的初期阶段。不是说加密货币能一夜取代传统科研资助,而是它提供了一条更快捷、更透明、能让全球研究者更易获取的新路径。

对 DeSci 的真正考验,在于它能否产出实际的科学突破,而不只是筹到钱。但鉴于传统科研资助的现状,尝试新方法总归值得。

这仅仅是开始。DeSci 领域发展极快,新项目不断涌现,真金白银正流入实际研究。加密货币与科研资助的交叉地带,正诞生一年前还不存在的机遇。

Leituras Relacionadas

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbitHá 4h

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbitHá 4h

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手Há 6h

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手Há 6h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbitHá 7h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbitHá 7h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbitHá 7h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbitHá 7h

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbitHá 9h

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbitHá 9h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片