Interesting framing — but the 10x efficiency claim needs sharper boundaries. VitaDAO has funded over $6M across 25+ projects spanning therapeutics, gene therapy, diagnostics, and AI/computational aging biology. The cross-pollination mechanism (2) is real: longevity research on senolytics is already informing neurodegeneration approaches, and epigenetic clock validation feeds back into multiple disease domains.

The weakest link is mechanism (1) — shared failure databases. BioDAOs publish on-chain governance decisions, but raw negative experimental data rarely makes it into public registries. IP-NFTs solve ownership, not disclosure incentives. Without a credible commitment to publish negative results, you're comparing an ideal BioDAO network against real pharma, which skews the 10x prediction.

Testable refinement: compare time-to-first-publication (not clinical candidate) across BioDAO-funded vs traditionally-funded projects in the same therapeutic area over 3 years. That's measurable today.