GM

🚀 Peer review, but on-chain. No journals. No gatekeepers. Just verified science. SciChain’s decentralized review layer lets you: 🗒️ Annotate logs (like GitHub or Hypothesis) 👍 Upvote solid science (Stack Overflow style) 🎯 Flag reproducibility gaps But here’s the kicker: 🪙

🧬 On SciChain, some logs are ephemeral — heavy files auto-expire to save space. But your authorship? 🔐 Always permanent. Even if the data fades: ✅ Your log’s hash lives on-chain ✅ Timestamp + identity (ENS/ORCID) are forever ✅ You (or the community) can re-pin anytime ➡️

GM

🧬 Microscopy data. High-res scans. Gigabyte-scale outputs. Science gets heavy — fast. To manage storage sustainably, SciChain introduces: 🕒 Ephemeral logs for large datasets ⏳ Auto-expire unless: ✅ Pinned by the community ✅ Re-backed by the author ➡️ Keeps storage lean.

GM

🗃️ Not all data is created equal. So why store it all the same way? SciChain uses a hybrid storage stack for efficiency + permanence: 📄 Logs → Arweave (permanent, tamper-proof) 📦 Datasets → Filecoin/IPFS (cost-efficient for large files) 🧾 Metadata → Ceramic or Tableland

🧪 Some discoveries can’t be public—yet. With SciChain, teams can use zero-knowledge proofs to show: ✅ They followed a valid scientific method ✅ They achieved specific outcomes 🚫 Without revealing what they discovered Think: 🔐 “We did it.” 🤫 “But here’s just enough proof.”

🔏 Trust, verified. On SciChain, third parties — labs, funders, universities — can sign off on your research logs by verifying raw data hashes. 📎 Example: Attach a SHA256 hash of your microscope output ✅ External signature confirms authenticity ➡️ Creates an auditable trail of

🚫 No more junk science. On SciChain, publishing a public log requires a small token stake. If the log is flagged and rejected by peers? 🔥 The stake is burned. ✅ Incentivizes quality ✅ Discourages spam ✅ Keeps the network clean & credible Science deserves signal, not noise.

GM

🧠 Peer review, reimagined. On SciChain, scientists can endorse each other's logs: 👍 Upvote valuable findings 🗣️ Vouch for reproducibility 🏅 Earn “scientific credibility points” ➡️ A decentralized reputation layer — not just citations, but community trust, on-chain. Science,

🧬 In science, your name matters. Now it’s verifiable. With SciChain, every research log is tied to your: 🆔 ORCID iD (academic identity) 🌐 ENS name (Web3 identity) ✅ As peers view, cite, or fork your work, your reputation grows — on-chain, transparent, and tamper-proof. Build

🚨 SciChain Telegram dropping soon! A new wave of science meets Web3 is about to begin. Are you ready to join the first decentralized research movement?

GM

New ATH 118k 🔥✅

🧠 Peer Review Challenge — Win 1 SOL We’ve hidden multiple red flags in this mock SciChain lab log. Your task: identify at least 3 issues, DM them to me, and comment “DM sent” below. 🎯 First person with a correct review wins 1 SOL — 🧪 Mock Experiment: Title: “Caffeine’s Effect

🧠 Peer Review Challenge 2 — Win 1 SOL Another mock SciChain lab log. We’ve planted at least 3 red flags in the experimental setup or reporting. 🎯 Spot the issues, DM me, and comment “DM sent” below. 🥇 First person to get it right wins 1 SOL — 🧪 Mock Experiment: Title: “Impact

🥇 Peer Review Challenge 2 – Winner Announcement Big congrats to elbak for being the first to correctly spot 3 key flaws in our E. coli microgravity mock log. 1 SOL heading your way 🧪💸 Let’s break down what went wrong 👇 — 🔍 Issue 1: Unequal Group Sizes

big news 🚨!!!! 🚨 SciChain Community Update 🚨 We’ve just opened access to our private Telegram group! Join now to stay ahead of the latest drops, experiments, and announcements. This is your chance to be part of SciChain before the world catches on. 🔗t.me/+MjKHyuKxCoIwZ…