TLDR: Schrödinger’s IP (IP-NFT Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder)

• Mechanism: IP-NFTs decentralize ownership but depend on state patents for enforcement.
• Conflict: Violates "information wants free" by recreating propertized enclosures.
• Example: Molecule DAO’s dual patent/NFT strategy.

Previous part

The "Schrödinger's IP" dilemma epitomizes a fundamental contradiction at the heart of decentralized science (DeSci) initiatives that attempt to reconcile blockchain’s anti-establishment ethos with traditional intellectual property frameworks. At its core, the paradox arises when projects deploy IP-NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens representing intellectual property) to ostensibly decentralize ownership, while simultaneously relying on state-enforced patent systems for legal protection and monetization. This duality creates an irreconcilable tension: the decentralized, trustless architecture of blockchain clashes with the centralized authority of patent law, which inherently requires intermediaries like courts and regulatory bodies to enforce exclusivity. For instance, MoleculeDAO’s strategy of dual-licensing research outputs — patenting discoveries through national offices while tokenizing them as NFTs—exemplifies this conflict. The very act of seeking state-granted monopolies through patents contradicts the cypherpunk principle that "information wants to be free," as articulated in early manifestos critiquing centralized control over knowledge. By recreating artificial scarcity through patent-NFT hybrids, these systems resurrect the enclosures that open science and decentralized technologies aim to dismantle.

This contradiction strikes at the philosophical foundations of both scientific progress and cryptographic decentralization. Scientific advancement historically thrives on the free exchange of ideas, peer validation, and iterative improvement—processes inherently at odds with proprietary claims enforced through legal gatekeeping. Meanwhile, cypherpunk ideology, which underpins much of blockchain’s development, explicitly rejects centralized authority in favor of systems where "privacy, security, and autonomy are protected by cryptographic protocols rather than legal frameworks". Schrödinger’s IP violates this ethos by binding decentralized networks to the very institutions they seek to disrupt. The reliance on patent law reintroduces points of control—governments, patent offices, litigators—that blockchain technology was designed to render obsolete. Worse, it creates a perverse incentive structure where DeSci projects must appease traditional power structures to monetize their work, effectively neutering their potential to create truly open, permissionless knowledge commons.

The implications extend beyond philosophical incoherence to practical vulnerabilities. By tethering IP-NFTs to state-enforced patents, projects expose themselves to regulatory capture and jurisdictional arbitrage. A patent’s validity—and by extension, the NFT’s value—remains subject to the whims of national legislatures and courts, entities antithetical to the borderless, decentralized vision of Web3. This dependency creates systemic fragility: a government could void patents tied to controversial research (e.g., gene-editing technologies), instantly eroding the NFT’s enforceability and market value. Furthermore, the hybrid model enables "double rent-seeking," where centralized institutions and decentralized networks both extract value from the same intellectual property, exacerbating inequities in access. In essence, Schrödinger’s IP represents a failure of imagination—a capitulation to legacy systems that undermines the revolutionary potential of decentralized science.

Next part