At Boost VC, we spend the beginning or end of each investment meeting answering a simple question: What’s Over-Valued? What’s Under-valued? Answers are not required to be tech or startup specific. The most recent debate was about candles. I’m in the “Candles are over-valued” bucket, but it may have been one of the more hotly debated topics - so I’m going to look into it a bit.
One topic comes up a fair amount in my mind when I ask myself this question, and it’s “Our Academic institutions are over-valued.” When I say that, many of you will perceive that comment differently, some will see the social experience, or the sports experience, or the research experience. What I mean is that ALL OF THOSE THINGS are over-valued:
Stanford is basically a money making healthcare institution that supports an undergrad school.
The top 6 schools control around $250B in their endowments.
Princeton’s Endowment is so big that fewer alumni are donating … but it doesn’t matter.
The NIL has completely changed the incentives of student athletes for sports.
Research coming out of universities is geared towards getting citations rather than value to the world.
Students go to university for the accreditation, rather than the knowledge.
Student loans are a bubble that is going to pop.
I believe Academia has hit something I call “The Tragedy of Scale.” When things hit a tragedy of scale, they become what the banks were called “Too big to fail.” Which actually inspires innovation.
So what do you do? Some of you may believe that I’m cracked… but more likely you have seen the cracks of the system.
If you believe this, eventually you ask yourself: So how do I bet against the house? What is the evolution where we get a better service for a lower cost, rather than a lesser experience for a higher cost?
Boost VC will be investing towards those types of questions which I can summarize by asking “How do I short Academia?”
I believe the answer breaks into many different solutions — investing in startups is definitely one answer. However, The best answer we have found for science research is in a small category inside of the crypto market, something that people are calling the “Decentralization of Science.” I recorded a five episode series on this movement, two years ago.
The DeSci movement is defined by: There are more GREAT scientists outside of Academia rather than inside Academia… So let’s get them the tools.
Scientists are a neglected creator class, like musicians or artists, conditioned to believe they can’t make money. UNTIL NOW!!! Now they have a new business model… a crypto business model, for them it’s called “iPNFTs.”
Currently the market is still small. Less than $50m worth of science has been funded in this road, however… it’s growing. I believe if we figure this out, the rate of breakthroughs will accelerate, and we will experience a renaissance of innovation the likes of which we have never seen. We are held back by gate-keepers of academic institutions right now.
So if you want to Short Academia… buy DeSci. I’m as excited about this as I was about Bitcoin 12 years ago.
What an interesting thesis! Could you clarify how buying into DeSci equates to shorting academia? Aren’t most scientists in the DeSci space also college graduates?
I'd like to know the odds of "success" of blue-sky R&D. Let's look at the known economic models
- Bell Labs ... industrial R&D supported by an effective monopoly - sorta adopted by Japanese keiretsu which conglomerates are actually supplier-networks + export-marketing
- Fraunhofer institutes ... closely tied to manufacturing and training
The PRC model of shanzai manufacturing is hard to pin down plus their indigenous IP is mixed ... arguably entire sectors are not-profitable so not sustainable without state lifeline & bank credit.
The fundamental problem with R&D is who absorbs the losses from failures?