Centralized platforms are gatekeepers. The first era of open access, built on APIs, failed because platforms like Facebook and Google controlled the data pipes. They revoked access, changed terms, and extracted monopoly rents, turning open ecosystems into walled gardens.
decentralized-science-desci-fixing-research
Blog
Why Open Access 1.0 Failed and Web3 Fixes It
The promise of open access was subverted by Article Processing Charges, creating a new paywall. Web3's decentralized infrastructure—immutable archives, verifiable data, and tokenized funding—offers a path to truly open, reproducible, and collaborative science.
introduction
THE ACCESS FAILURE
Introduction
Open Access 1.0's centralized gatekeepers created data silos and rent-seeking, which Web3's verifiable ownership and permissionless protocols structurally dismantle.
Web3 inverts the data model. Protocols like Ethereum and Arbitrum treat user data and assets as on-chain state owned by cryptographic keys, not corporate databases. This shifts control from platform operators to users and developers.
Permissionless composability is the fix. A smart contract on Uniswap can trustlessly interact with Aave or Compound without asking for permission. This creates a composable financial stack where innovation compounds without central gatekeepers.
Evidence: The Total Value Locked (TVL) in DeFi, which requires no sign-up, surpassed $100B, while Meta's platform API famously crippled startups like Zynga by changing access rules.
thesis-statement
THE FAILED STATE
The Core Argument
Open Access 1.0's centralized gatekeepers created the very monopolies it sought to dismantle, a flaw Web3's programmable ownership inherently solves.
Centralized gatekeepers won. The promise of an open internet was subverted by platforms like Facebook and Google, which captured user data and network effects. This created walled gardens of value where users are the product, not the owners.
Programmable ownership is the fix. Web3 protocols like Ethereum and Solana encode ownership rights directly into assets via smart contracts. This shifts economic agency from corporations to users, enabling new models like Uniswap's LP tokens or NFT royalties.
Data becomes a composable asset. In Web2, your social graph is locked in a database. In Web3, your on-chain reputation and assets are permissionless building blocks for applications like Aave's credit delegation or Lens Protocol profiles.
Evidence: The $100B+ Total Value Locked in DeFi protocols demonstrates that users will migrate capital to systems where they retain direct, verifiable ownership and control.
WHY OPEN ACCESS 1.0 FAILED
The Publishing Oligopoly: A Data Snapshot
A first-principles comparison of legacy academic publishing, its open-access successors, and the Web3-native alternative.
| Core Metric / Feature | Legacy Publisher (Elsevier, Springer) | Open Access 1.0 (PLOS, Frontiers) | Web3 Protocol (DeSci, e.g., ResearchHub) |
|---|---|---|---|
Author Publishing Cost (APC) | $2,500 - $11,000 | $1,500 - $3,500 | $0 - $50 (Gas Fees) |
Publisher Gross Profit Margin |
| 15-25% | 0% (Non-profit DAO) |
Article Processing Time (Submission to Publication) | 9-12 months | 3-6 months | < 1 month (Pre-print + On-chain) |
Reviewer Incentive Model | Unpaid (Professional Duty) | Unpaid (Professional Duty) | Token Rewards (e.g., $RESEARCH, $ANT) |
Copyright & Licensing | Author transfers copyright; Publisher owns | Author retains copyright; CC-BY license | On-chain immutable record; CCO/CC-BY-NC |
Data & Code Availability Mandate | Often false (varies by journal) | true (IPFS/Arweave hash required) | |
Public, Verifiable Peer Review | Optional (e.g., PLOS) | true (On-chain attestations) | |
Revenue Distribution to Authors/Reviewers | 0% | 0% |
|
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Web3 Stack for Open Science
Open Access 1.0 failed to solve the fundamental incentive problem, which Web3's programmable ownership directly addresses.
Open Access 1.0 failed because it decoupled access from ownership, creating a free-rider problem. Researchers publish for reputation, but platforms like Elsevier capture the value. This misalignment starves the infrastructure.
Web3 introduces programmable ownership through tokens and smart contracts. This creates a direct financial feedback loop. Contributors earn via mechanisms like retroactive public goods funding or protocol revenue shares, as seen in Gitcoin Grants and Optimism's OP Stack.
The counter-intuitive fix is that monetization enables true openness. When data creators and curators are rewarded via IP-NFTs or Ocean Protocol data tokens, they are incentivized to maintain high-quality, accessible datasets, unlike centralized repositories.
Evidence: The Molecule platform uses IP-NFTs to tokenize biotech research assets, creating a liquid market for early-stage IP and aligning funders, researchers, and developers in a shared economic model.
protocol-spotlight
FROM WALLED GARDENS TO PERMISSIONLESS INFRASTRUCTURE
Protocols Building Open Access 2.0
Open Access 1.0 promised universal connectivity but was co-opted by centralized platforms that captured value and stifled innovation. Web3 rebuilds the stack with credibly neutral, composable primitives.
01
The API Monopoly Problem
Platforms like Google Maps and Twitter built their empires on open APIs, then pulled the rug with arbitrary rate limits and pricing. This kills startups and centralizes power.
- Solution: Decentralized RPC & Indexing via The Graph and POKT Network.
- Key Benefit: Censorship-resistant data access with ~99.9% uptime SLA.
- Key Benefit: Predictable, token-based pricing instead of corporate whims.
1000+
Subgraphs
-70%
API Cost
02
The Interoperability Silos
Every new L1 or L2 became a liquidity island. Bridging assets was slow, risky, and required trusting centralized multisigs, leading to $2B+ in bridge hacks.
- Solution: Intent-Based & Light Client Bridges like Across and LayerZero.
- Key Benefit: Atomic composability via solvers competing for best execution.
- Key Benefit: ~15 sec finality vs. 7-day challenge periods on some rollups.
$10B+
TVL Secured
15s
Avg. Time
03
The Data Availability Black Box
Centralized sequencers and data committees create single points of failure. Users have no guarantee their transaction data is available for verification, breaking the security model.
- Solution: Modular DA Layers like Celestia and EigenDA.
- Key Benefit: $0.001 per MB cost for rollups to post data.
- Key Benefit: Enables sovereign rollups that can fork and upgrade without permission.
100x
Cheaper DA
10K+
TPS Capacity
04
The Identity Fragmentation Trap
Every dApp forces you to create a new account. Social logins (Google, Facebook) hand over control and data to intermediaries, creating a terrible UX and security risk.
- Solution: Self-Sovereign Identity Stacks using Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) and Worldcoin.
- Key Benefit: Portable, verifiable credentials that work across any application.
- Key Benefit: Sybil-resistance for fair airdrops and governance without KYC.
5M+
Attestations
1-Click
Login
05
The MEV Extraction Economy
Validators and searchers extract $500M+ annually from users via front-running and sandwich attacks. This is a direct tax on Open Access, hidden in slippage.
- Solution: Fair Ordering & Encrypted Mempools via Shutter Network and Flashbots SUAVE.
- Key Benefit: Transaction encryption prevents predatory front-running.
- Key Benefit: MEV redistribution back to users and dApps.
$500M+
Extracted Annually
-90%
Sandwich Risk
06
The Compute Centralization Risk
AWS and Google Cloud control ~65% of cloud infrastructure. This creates a systemic risk for decentralized networks that ironically run on centralized servers.
- Solution: Decentralized Physical Infrastructure (DePIN) like Akash and Render Network.
- Key Benefit: ~80% cheaper compute vs. hyperscalers for batch jobs.
- Key Benefit: Censorship-resistant backend for oracles and sequencers.
65%
Cloud Market Share
-80%
Compute Cost
risk-analysis
WHY OPEN ACCESS 1.0 FAILED
The Bear Case: Why This Could Still Fail
The promise of an open internet was broken by platform monopolies. Web3's architectural fixes are promising but face their own existential threats.
01
The Protocol vs. Platform Trap
Open Access 1.0 protocols (SMTP, HTTP) were commoditized by platforms (Gmail, Facebook) that captured all value. Web3 inverts this by making the protocol layer the value layer.
- Value Accrual: Value accrues to tokenized protocols (e.g., Uniswap, Lido) not corporate front-ends.
- Exit to Community: Forking is a feature; users and developers can exit to a new front-end without losing assets or data.
$1.5B+
UNI Fees
100%
Portable
02
The Data Silos of Web2
Platforms locked user data, creating switching costs and stifling innovation. Web3's composable data layer (public blockchains) is its killer feature.
- Composability as Moat: A single on-chain transaction can trigger actions across Aave, Compound, and Uniswap.
- User-Owned Graph: Your transaction history and reputation are portable assets, not locked in a Facebook or Google silo.
0
Lock-in
1000+
Composable Apps
03
The Incentive Misalignment
Web2's ad-driven model made user attention the product. Web3 aligns incentives via programmable money and tokenized ownership.
- Skin in the Game: Protocols like Curve and Convex use tokenomics to align LPs, voters, and builders.
- Direct Monetization: Creators capture value directly via NFTs and social tokens, bypassing YouTube or Spotify's ~55% revenue take.
55%
Platform Tax
90%+
Creator Take
04
The New Centralization Vectors
Web3's fixes are undermined by its own centralization risks: validator cartels, RPC monopolies, and stablecoin issuers.
- Infrastructure Risk: Infura, Alchemy, and AWS represent single points of failure for ~70% of Ethereum traffic.
- Stablecoin Sovereignty: USDC blacklisting power contradicts censorship resistance, creating regulatory attack vectors.
70%
RPC Share
$30B+
Censorable Stable
05
The UX Friction Cliff
Seed phrases, gas fees, and bridge risks create a UX barrier that mainstream users refuse to climb. Account abstraction and intent-based systems are the fix.
- Abstracted Complexity: ERC-4337 and wallets like Safe enable social recovery and gas sponsorship.
- Intent Paradigm: Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap let users specify what they want, not how to execute it.
12 Words
Friction
1-Click
Target
06
The Regulatory Capture Endgame
Open Access 1.0 was captured by corporations. Web3 risks capture by regulators enforcing compliance at the base layer, breaking its core properties.
- Validator KYC: Proposals for licensed validator sets (e.g., SEC stance on PoS) destroy permissionlessness.
- Privacy Outlawed: Protocols like Tornado Cash are targeted, chilling development of essential privacy tech like zk-SNARKs.
100%
At Risk
0
Compromise
future-outlook
THE ACCESS CONTROL FAILURE
The Inevitable Fork
Web2's centralized access control created walled gardens, a flaw Web3's permissionless protocols inherently solve.
Open Access 1.0 failed because centralized platforms like Facebook and Google controlled the API. They could revoke access, change terms, or extract rent, turning 'open' into a temporary marketing slogan.
Web3's core innovation is permissionless composability. Any developer can fork a protocol like Uniswap or build on its immutable smart contracts without asking permission. This creates a competitive execution layer where forks like SushiSwap must innovate on tokenomics or UX to survive.
The data proves the model works. Over $100B in value is secured by forked Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) code. The existence of multiple L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism, all running similar core software, demonstrates that forkability drives infrastructure commoditization and specialization.
This forking pressure enforces protocol discipline. Projects like Aave must continuously deliver value to token holders; otherwise, a community fork with better governance or lower fees emerges. The threat is a more effective regulator than any centralized Terms of Service.
takeaways
FROM WALLED GARDENS TO OPEN NETWORKS
Key Takeaways for Builders & Funders
Open Access 1.0 promised a free internet but delivered centralized platforms that extract value and control access. Web3's programmable infrastructure flips the model.
01
The Gatekeeper Tax
Platforms like Apple's App Store and Google Play enforce 30% revenue cuts and arbitrary API access, stifling innovation. Web3 protocols like Arweave and Filecoin replace rent-seeking with transparent, code-governed fee markets.
- Eliminates platform rent: Fees are set by open-market competition, not corporate policy.
- Guaranteed composability: Once data is on-chain or on a decentralized storage network, it's permissionlessly accessible.
30%
Platform Tax
~0%
Protocol Fee
02
Data Silos vs. Portable Reputation
Your social graph and transaction history are locked in platforms like Facebook or Amazon, creating high switching costs. Web3 identity primitives like ERC-4337 Account Abstraction and ENS decouple identity from application.
- User-owned data: Social graphs can be built on Lens Protocol or Farcaster.
- Portable capital & reputation: A DeFi history on Aave can underwrite credit in a gaming app without re-KYC.
1
Portable Identity
0
Vendor Lock-in
03
Centralized Points of Failure
AWS outages take down entire ecosystems. Open Access 1.0 infrastructure is fragile and opaque. Web3 leverages decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN) like Helium and Render Network.
- Censorship-resistant: No single entity can de-platform a service.
- Transparent operations: Network health and usage are verifiable on-chain, unlike AWS's black box.
99.99%
Target Uptime
Global
Redundancy
04
The Interoperability Illusion
"Open APIs" are revocable privileges, as seen when Twitter restricted API access. True interoperability requires a shared settlement layer. Cross-chain protocols like LayerZero, Wormhole, and IBC enable sovereign state transfer.
- Secure composability: Build cross-chain applications (like Across Protocol) without asking for permission.
- Eliminates bridge risk: Native asset transfers reduce counterparty risk versus wrapped assets.
$10B+
TVL Secured
100+
Chains Connected
05
Innovation Bottlenecks
App store review boards and platform policy changes can kill a business overnight (e.g., Epic vs. Apple). Web3's permissionless deployment on L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base removes the intermediary.
- Instant global launch: Deploy a smart contract, and it's live for all users with a compatible wallet.
- Forkability as a feature: Successful ideas like Uniswap are forked and improved (e.g., PancakeSwap), driving rapid evolution.
0
Review Boards
<$1
Deploy Cost
06
Value Capture Misalignment
In Web2, users create value (content, data) but platforms capture it. Web3's tokenized ownership through protocols like Uniswap (governance tokens) and NFTs realigns incentives.
- Users become stakeholders: Activity rewards tokens, aligning growth with community ownership.
- Protocols > Platforms: Value accrues to the decentralized network, not a corporate entity.
$7B+
Community Treasury
100%
User-Aligned
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall