I'll start brutally honest and negative; everyone in DeSci seems to have adopted the pharma corporate jargon upgraded with crypto flair, which makes it impossible for anyone to actually understand what any one project is trying to accomplish. Not to mention projects celebrating partnerships with other projects that are in their infancy or look obscurely abandoned.

Even though I started negatively I do believe that most DeSci projects are brilliant science wrapped in terrible marketing and low effort GTM (go-to-market).

You've spent years mastering complex research methodologies, but can't communicate your vision in a way that resonates with the people who could fund it.

This is why your project is struggling. 🚨

The Crypto-Pharma Jargon Trap

Everyone seems to adopt pharma corporate jargon upgraded with crypto flair—creating an impenetrable wall between your innovation and potential supporters.

I recently encountered this firsthand:

PoSci DAO announced their first proposal: "Accelerating Rare Disease Drug Discovery through AI-Driven BioML and Active Learning Feedback Loops."

Interesting? Yes. Decodable? Barely. Actionable for new supporters? Not at all.

They're paying $115k to another project, Rare Compute, for what appears to be a valuable experiment with potentially game-changing outcomes. It even sounds reasonably priced.

The Supporter Journey That Failed

As curious mind I am, I investigated Rare Compute:

• 300 followers on X

• 60 followers on LinkedIn

• Three associated members, none full-time

• A brief website filled with empty promises about "groundbreaking discoveries that will reshape our understanding of human biology"

Red flags everywhere.

You're asking for my money, but project you will pay $115k to appears to be a hobby. Their website lacks clarity, their X feed is barren except for reposts and an outdated tweet about a Gitcoin round from August. So does your PoSci.

This matters because I'm your target audience:

• Interested in DeSci

• Invested thousands in DeSci NFT projects (2021/22)

• Considering buying $SCI

• Former Big Pharma director

• Crypto native and life-long entrepreneur

But I walked away without taking action.

The Metrics That Matter

When evaluating projects, I analyze:

• Team members

• Proposal amounts

• Follower counts

• Original content frequency

• White/lite papers

• Website clarity

I'm not alone in this approach. I'm not into meme coins, I want quality.

A Missed Opportunity

Looking for contrast and potentially positive recommendation, I checked Axon DAO (@AxonDAO). Their X feed and website contain regular updates and clear explanations of their mission and roadmap.

Yet even they fell into unnecessary traps that repel newcomers - as I noted in a recent tweet:

The Fundamental Failure

After an hour of research, reading, and scrolling, I remained lost and took no action except documenting my experience.

None of these projects wanted me to write about my frustrations—they wanted me to:

• Buy $SCI

• Vote on proposals

• Follow their accounts

• Pre-order products like CureRING

They all failed to convert me.

The Path Forward

This is your lesson:

1. Focus on the specific action sequence you want supporters to take

2. Design every touchpoint with your audience's emotions, wants, and needs in mind

3. Simplify your communication—jargon doesn't make you sound smarter, it makes you invisible

4. Treat your DeSci project with the same marketing discipline as any successful business

Can you imagine this level of audience negligence in any other industry striving for positive impact? Neither can I.

We need to do better to win in Web3 and DeSci. Your brilliant science deserves better marketing.

What other communication barriers have you noticed in DeSci projects? Let's discuss how to bridge this gap.

I'm BrightFutureGuy on FC and X.
- on Farcaster: https://warpcast.com/bfg
- on X: https://twitter.com/aka_BFG

And join the FC channel to meet other builders who want to do it better: https://warpcast.com/~/channel/buildbetter