You are doing it totally wrong, according to wiki you got some 26000 that use it or try it. You need people like me who don’t like games that much, but love money and fun.
If it was character/story-based and had engaging visual landscape I could run around in it and enjoy it as a game more easily. Today its only nerds, geeks and other riff-raff stinkers that will bother with you because you do it the wrong way ideologically.
Make money-prizes for solutions or best of class etc. (get some sponsor), reform your game-visuals from a “clean” view of DNA or whatever into a real game.
Some of the structures remind me of spindle-staircases, make a Mario-character run up and down the “staircases” trying to find connections to other staircases before they fall/explode/loose steps based on your folding/protein-rules, or let Mario be hunted by cancer-proteins or what have you.
I wanted to like the game but got bored both by the training intro and the lack of changing visual feedback etc. If you instead actually add some wad of cash behind those players that find real game-solutions (conquer end of stage protein-monsters by the right staircase-paths, energy-levels, strength of staircases etc), you could get millions to try it again and again the same way millions of suckers respond to and use years to “earn money online”.
So conclusion: scrap ANY direct comparison/link with boring nerdy science in the visuals and add cash to 100 best solutions every quarter etc. That way you will get 260.000 not 26.000 people playing every day most of whom could not care less for “community-science” but like money and fun and want it sitting down.
And yes the most creative and out of the box-thinkers are not nerds or geeks but tinkerers and those that run their own small businesses, ie. free-market survivors.
Your call.
