There's a fundamental difference between DeSci projects and other assets launching on-chain: DeSci projects exist to fund science and contribute to the collective knowledge of humankind. Capital flows and incentive structures need to reflect that.
@kunchenguid Even if it's just expression of the agents interpretation of the intent, wouldn't it still assert the correctness of the code according to the intent?
Gaps in expressing intent fully and therefore writing the wrong (vs. the non-functioning) thing is hard to fix.
@TheRitvikS Compilation and the built-in safety features of rust act as first deterministic quality gates. 0s and 1s are not as expressive, hence don't lend themselves as good to LLM-based code generation.
Decentralized research via autonomous agentic systems coordinating & transacting on-chain. Objectives are set and trust is earned trough verifiable code.
6-12 months ago the large labs started buying bio data
this spend is starting to ramp very aggressively. the labs are somewhat indiscriminate buyers with enormous budgets. the therapeutics market has long had buyers of data (large and small pharma) but they've historically been the exact opposite of huge-budget and indiscriminate
this shift will distort the bio startup market in a bunch of ways. there will be a lot of short-termist behavior to try to get in front of this capital firehouse. but unlike the AI data labelers (mercor, et al) and the robotics labelers (mecka, et al), the bio startups serving up this data have a chance to emerge from this period with businesses that don't rely on selling data
the best bio startups will use these sudden resources the labs are dumping on them to supercharge their novel assay and work towards independently powerful models and eventually directly produce therapies
bio is the final frontier and its a very exciting time ahead for bio startups IMO
"Don't be evil" is a temporary commitment to moral standards that can be broken at any time.
"Can't be evil" lives forever, encoded in smart contracts, on-chain.
This is why crypto is winning.
It seems like there is some confusion around ignition sale allocations, how they are calculated and where funds went for the recent $NDT launch. User feedback is super important to us. Transparency & verifiablity are killer features of crypto (some would also call it a bug). Launches on @BioProtocol largely happen on-chain. The allocations of sale participants are being calculated based on their (optional) BioXP pledges. BioXP is our reward program for users that show long-term commitment to the DeSci ecosystem. For launches, it let's users 'skip the line'. The rules for that are roughly:
The token allocation is basically pro-rata based on BioXP pledge with some caveats:
- Allocation ceiling at max allocation. This is a parameter that's set per launch, together with the project team and communicated on the ignition sale page of each launch. BioXP pledges that would lead to an allocation greater than max is burned.
- Floor at USDC commitment (infinite BioXP does not give you infinite tokens - token price is fixed per launch). Extra BioXP that would lead to more tokens than the user committed paying for in USDC is burnt.
- If there is allocation left, distribute rest to people who have committed USDC but "too little" BioXP (e.g. 0)
More info and links in the 🧵
Btw we're looking into calculating a DeSci score that is based on actual on-chain wallet activity. People who have skin in the game and believe in a decentralized future where science can flourish should be rewarded!