DeSci Sin #10: Hybrid Enclosures
Hybrid Enclosures: DeSci’s Quiet Surrender to Patent Parasitism
- Mechanism: Web3’s “decentralized” IP models keep one foot in the legacy patent swamp.
- Conflict: Pretending to abolish rent-seeking while leaving the door wide open for it.
- Example: Bio.xyz’s governance backdoors, VitaDAO’s commercialization loopholes, Molecule’s trust-based royalties.
Let’s cut through the decentralization theater. Projects like Bio.xyz, VitaDAO, and Molecule claim to dismantle intellectual property monopolies—but their own frameworks reveal a cowardly reliance on the very systems they pretend to oppose.
1. Bio.xyz: Governance as a Patent Launchpad
Bio.xyz in its IP Bible:
- Legitimizes patents as “fundamental to the US economy”.
- Fails to prohibit DAOs from filing patents via governance.
- Promotes IP-NFTs as complementary to traditional IP, not replacements.
This isn't neutrality — it's complicity. By retaining patent options, BioDAO admits its model can’t survive without state-granted monopolies. The cypherpunk response? Burn the patent office, don’t ask it for favors.
2. VitaDAO: IP-NFT Reality
VitaDAO’s own documentation and third-party analysis make it clear:
- IP-NFTs represent full legal IP rights and data access to research, which can be sold or licensed to third parties, including corporations (CoinGecko).
- Licensing and Sale: After VitaDAO purchases an asset, it can license or sell the IP to pharma or biotech companies. The proceeds go to the DAO treasury or are distributed to token holders (LinkedIn).
- No CC0 Guarantee: Nowhere does VitaDAO guarantee that all funded research is released under CC0/public domain. Instead, they tokenize and control access, with the DAO voting on commercialization strategies (VitaDAO Funding FAQ).
What does this mean?
Community-funded research can end up locked behind exclusive licenses or even sold outright—classic enclosure, just with DAO branding.
3. Molecule: Royalty Fairy Tales
3. Molecule: Legal Theater Masquerading as Revolution
Molecule’s IP-NFT framework claims to empower contributors with royalty shares but relies on traditional legal enforcement — not blockchain—to ensure compliance. While their documentation suggests favorable splits for researchers, these terms hinge on licensees like Pfizer voluntarily honoring paper contracts, not immutable code.
The problem?
- No On-Chain Enforcement: Revenue-sharing terms exist only in off-chain legal agreements, enforceable solely through courts—the very centralized systems Web3 aims to bypass.
- Trust-Based Model: If a licensee ignores terms, the DAO must sue—a process requiring funds, lawyers, and time most decentralized communities lack.
This isn't innovation—it's old-world rent-seeking with a blockchain sticker. Molecule's "decentralization" stops where the legal system begins, surrendering cypherpunk principles of trustless execution.
The Cypherpunk Betrayal
These projects aren’t hybrid—they’re hypocritical. By clinging to patent systems as a "fallback", DeSci:
- Legitimizes state violence: Treats government IP enforcement as valid.
- Signals weakness: Admits decentralized models can’t compete without monopoly crutches.
- Invites capture: Lets whales vote to privatize research during market slumps.
The cypherpunk mandate was clear:
Just as the technology of printing altered and reduced the power of medieval guilds and the social power structure, so too will cryptologic methods fundamentally alter the nature of corporations and of government interference in economic transactions. [...] dismantle the barbed wire around intellectual property.
Hybrid Enclosures don’t tear down walls—they install revolving doors.
Conclusion: DeSci’s IP frameworks are a surrender, not a revolution. Until these projects burn their patent exit strategies, they remain collaborators in the enclosure regime — decentralized in name, centralized in spirit.