By his own admission, the company that Andrew Verbinnen cofounded is a vanity project — literally.

It’s called HairDAO, and it was born out of a problem he and his business partner, Andrew Bakst, share with roughly two-thirds of men 35 and younger: thinning, receding hair. The cofounders, neither of whom have a background in medical science, were “selfishly obsessed with hair loss,” Verbinnen, who is 30 and has had a hair transplant, tells me. They were also frustrated because there are only two Food and Drug Administration-approved (FDA) treatments for male pattern baldness: finasteride and minoxidil. While the treatments do slow hair loss and encourage new hair growth (respectively) for most patients, they’re not going to achieve Verbinnen’s mission “to turn a slick bald scalp fully hairy.”

Outside the walls of doctors’ offices and university labs — outside of any walls, in fact — Verbinnen and Bakst saw what they considered an untapped goldmine: countless anonymous “researchers” coming up with new theories about how to treat hair loss and, in some cases, testing their ideas on themselves. The subreddit r/tressless boasts nearly half a million weekly visitors; r/hairloss has another 37,000 per week. But that supposed treasure trove was organized more like a junk drawer. Instead, the solution to identifying the best possible treatments and getting them made was obvious to Verbinnen: cryptocurrency.

Not the obvious answer to you? It wasn’t to me either. And yet HairDAO is one of a handful of crypto-health care startups that have attracted patients — who are also investors — looking for better solutions with a lot less red tape. Are they just another speculative investment, or a viable alternative to a frustrating health care system? Here’s what I learned.

What does cryptocurrency have to do with health care?

Great question, I had the same one. And it really varies a lot from organization to organization.

For the uninitiated, DAO stands for decentralized autonomous organization. It’s a fancy way of saying that there’s no central party — a board, government officials, a CEO — governing the group. Instead, its members are the decision-makers. As Verbinnen explains it, instead of scientists, the government and private companies choosing what hair research gets funded, the people who would benefit from that research decide. Here’s how it works: People buy a cryptocurrency token — in this case, one called HAIR (valued at $32.51 at the time of publication). Each token gives its owner one vote on which ideas to pursue, and HairDAO then uses the funds raised to conduct that research.

HairDAO conducted its first study in the lab of University of Miami Miller School of Medicine dermatologist Ralf Paus, which resulted in the first product sold by its sister company, Anagen. It’s a topical version of T3, a thyroid hormone that’s FDA-approved in pill form to treat low levels of the hormone. Now, HairDAO conducts research on donated human hair follicles in petri dishes in its own New York City lab as proof of concept that drugs approved for other uses might work to treat hair loss. Verbinnen says the lab does this at a fraction of the cost of a study conducted at a university.

The company does not do clinical studies on humans or animals. And it doesn’t encourage users to conduct experiments on themselves — though some do anyway, Verbinnen says. But it does collect data on how well its products actually work based on feedback from its community members (there are about 3,000 members on its Discord server). Members who submit their data are rewarded with cryptocurrency, and that information is used to determine whether a treatment is working.

Is more research the same as better research?

As for HairDAO’s products, Verbinnen and his cofounder have both tested and still use one or more of its products on themselves and say their hair loss has “stabilized.” Verbinnen’s mom also tested one of his company’s products and had her hair follicles scanned by a special machine in the HairDAO lab, which showed a visible increase in the number of strands, Verbinnen says.

This so-called decentralized science (also known as DeSci), which takes place outside of the silos of research institutions, “is, in the simplest, most fundamental way of framing it, kind of the exact opposite of peer-review, which is kind of what science has been built on,” Aditya Narayan, a Stanford University medical school student who published a paper about DeSci, tells me.

Narayan is in favor of making research and information more accessible, but he has serious concerns. “From a clinical safety standpoint, a lot of this work doesn’t necessarily eliminate the need for professional oversight,” Narayan says. “We have to transition access to meaningful use, and there is almost no regulation of direct-to-consumer [products].”

In 2024, one of HairDAO’s contributors, a “self-taught biologist” known as Jumpman, who “has become one of the most prolific hair loss researchers in the world,” according to the company’s website, reportedly tested a chemotherapy drug on himself as part of his hair loss “cure” protocol and allegedly convinced others to go in on a “group” buy of the chemical with him, which some called dangerous. HairDAO also lacks a formalized system for reporting side effects, aside from Discord chatter (although Verbinnen says it will eventually implement one).

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Some crypto-based groups aim not only to empower patients but also to help them avoid potentially dangerous side effects of certain treatments and medications.

Jennifer Severtsgaard, 54, credits the organization Community Empowerment Through Health Information (CEtHI), which plans to use the technology that underlies cryptocurrency to store patient data, for helping her narrowly dodge a cancer drug that might have caused her serious harm.

In April of 2024, Severtsgaard’s oncologist told her that she had Stage 1 triple-negative cancer, an aggressive form that had been caught early. She was told it would require surgery and possibly chemotherapy. After a double mastectomy, Severtsgaard wanted to know more about her specific cancer before deciding whether to undergo chemotherapy or any other medical treatments.

Cancer is sometimes described as being as unique as the individual who has it because even cancers of the same type, subtype and location can have unique gene mutations. In an ideal world, each person’s individual cancer might be treated differently. In practice, the number of proven, safe treatments are limited. Doctors and patients alike often don’t have the time and resources for completely bespoke treatments.

When Severtsgaard asked for further testing that might indicate different or more targeted therapies or whether chemotherapy was necessary, her doctor told her it was pointless. “I was basically patted on the head and told, ‘Stay off Google,’” she says.

But Severtsgaard didn’t stay off Google. Instead, she delayed chemotherapy treatment and searched for an oncologist who would listen to her and give her the answers she wanted to. It took four tries, but she found a doctor who would do just that. She also found Paola Raska, a genetic epidemiologist and founder of CEtHI. Raska analyzed the extensive results of Severtsgaard’s tests and helped identify treatments that might work well for Severtsgaard, and at least one drug that could have caused a life-threatening complication. Severtsgaard underwent treatment, including chemotherapy, starting in April of 2025 and, by November, was cancer-free.

A lofty goal with serious consequences

Raska’s mission is to help patients compile as much specific information as possible about their health conditions — beginning with breast cancer — so they can make more informed decisions about their care. She’s currently building a platform using the same technology that underpins cryptocurrency — blockchain — because it provides data security and a record that can only be modified by its owner (in this case, the patient). Raska does not intend to sell tokens, allowing patients to be part of her project, and believes the platform will put them in the driver’s seat of their own care, potentially opening up more individualized treatment options. She views leaving patients out of the decision-making process and failing to utilize every available tool as a bigger problem than the risk of putting people without medical education in charge of their treatment. Severtsgaard is a sort of proof-of-concept case. This approach led to effective treatment and remission in her case.

Many oncologists support shared decision-making, in which doctors and patients talk through options together to land on a treatment plan that both are comfortable with. Both Raska and Narayan say there’s often still an imbalance — patients aren’t given enough information and aren’t always listened to. DAOs might be able to improve that dynamic. “As clinicians and scientists, we can’t solve so many of the [health issues] that people deal with,” says Naryan. “People have found this democratized structure to find solutions that, as doctors, we don’t really have.”

That isn’t always the outcome when a patient’s opinions are weighted more heavily than a doctor’s. However, Raska’s hope is that models like CEtHI can empower patients, while also helping them connect with medical experts willing to listen to their concerns, consider all the available health information and steer them clear of potentially risky or unproven treatments.

Crypto-enabled models for health care might “democratize” the process, but they’re not free from risk — or financial incentives. “The democratization direction is the correct one, but there are very obvious profit motives” when someone’s number of votes is determined by how many tokens they’ve bought, says Narayan. And, perhaps more importantly, he adds, "being part of a DAO has a very emotional appeal, but it doesn’t guarantee better access or outcomes.”