Boyang Wang, Founder of Immortal Dragons – Interview Series

Boyang Wang, Founder of Immortal Dragons is an entrepreneur and early-stage investor focused on frontier technologies, with experience spanning gaming infrastructure, venture building, and education. As the founder of Immortal Dragons and co-founder of P12 / Prodigy Tech in Singapore, he has been actively involved in building and supporting emerging ecosystems, particularly in gaming and deep tech. Earlier in his career, he contributed as a lecturer in psychology and as a tutor at the NUS School of Computing, reflecting a strong academic foundation in both technical and interdisciplinary fields, alongside volunteer work supporting mental health initiatives.

Immortal Dragons is a purpose-driven longevity fund headquartered in Singapore that focuses on advancing human healthspan through investments in cutting-edge biotechnology and life extension research. The fund prioritizes long-term scientific impact over short-term financial returns, backing areas such as gene therapy, 3D bioprinting, regenerative medicine, and longevity infrastructure to accelerate breakthroughs across the entire research-to-clinical pipeline. Beyond investments, it also plays an active in ecosystem building through education, content, and global advocacy, aiming to push longevity science from experimental concepts toward real-world, scalable solutions.

You come from a technology and entrepreneurial background rather than a traditional biomedical path, and went on to found Immortal Dragons. What specifically led you to launch the fund, and how has your background shaped how you evaluate longevity investments today?

Growing up in an Asian family, I witnessed both the marvels and shortcomings of modern medicine firsthand — childhood asthma and food allergies that couldn’t be diagnosed for lack of proper tests. That experience sparked a lifelong interest in biology.

Drawing on my background in computer science and entrepreneurship, I invest in radical, overlooked longevity research that traditional ventures ignore. History shows that unconventional bets often yield the breakthroughs that benefit the many — and maximizing those odds is the mission.

There is growing discussion around a potential longevity bubble. Where do you see the biggest disconnect between investor expectations and the biological reality of aging research?

Many startups in this space focus on incremental improvements rather than transformative breakthroughs. What signals help you distinguish between meaningful innovation and hype?

I value impact over return, especially the kind of technology that can fundamentally impact aging. For instance, one of our investment thesis is replacement strategy, specifically: replacing bad body parts with synthetic replacement instead of trying to repair them. One of the relative portfolio companies is Frontier Bio, pioneers in 3D Biofabrication. FDA has already approved the first 3D fabricated blood vessel (Humacyte) for therapeutic usage, marking 3D biofabrication a promising field of technology that could have a huge impact on solving organ shortage and immune reactions associated with organ transplant. This is the type of innovation we are willing to bet on, among other moonshot initiatives.

You are investing in areas like gene therapy, regeneration, and tissue engineering. How do you assess risk in technologies that may take decades to validate clinically?

Immortal Dragons is a corporate venture capital that’s 90% self-funded with no LP mandate, therefore we are fortunate enough to set aside financial returns and to focus more on the impact of technology. At these science frontiers, progress takes years (even decades) to validate and translate, what matters to Immortal Dragons is the potential impact of the technology and legitimacy of the founding team. We are in for the long run.

Aging is not classified as a disease by regulators in most jurisdictions. How does that affect capital formation, exit pathways, and the overall investability of longevity startups?

From an investor perspective, what milestones would signal that the longevity sector is transitioning from early-stage science into a scalable and investable market?

We made our bread and butter in technology space, but unlike tech companies, longevity/biotech does not have many commercial metrics to consider as reference, for example: daily active user, 30 days retention rate, average use time, etc. So in terms of strong signals, we look at data and researchections; if data and research shows strong signals that this technology has a chance to be successful and the tech itself is acknowledged by not few, but plenty of scientists in the field, then it is an initiative that’s worth betting on.

When evaluating founders in the longevity space, what specific qualities or backgrounds give you confidence they can navigate such long development cycles?

There’s no standard framework to filter ideal founders in the space yet, at least not for us. But there are specific characters we are looking for:

Alligned mission: we want our mission to be aligned with the founding team, in order to achieve long term goals and impacts

• Execution: we believe rightection + smart execution means success
• Resilience: R&D is difficult in the context of longevity or radical life extension technologies. So resilience matters when it comes to success in this field, long-term commitment and determination brings you better odds of surviving and eventually succeeding.

AI is increasingly being used to accelerate drug discovery, biomarker identification, and aging research. What types of AI-driven longevity companies are most compelling to you right now, and where do you think the current narrative is overestimating AI’s near-term impact?

AI will transform biology through three advances:

• AI-native wet labs (closed-loop robotics + foundation models) compress cycle times 10–30× by dynamically adapting experiments in real time.
• Generative protein/RNA design enters reliability phase — fewer “hallucinated” molecules, more synthesizable, testable candidates.
• Digital twins pilot clinically for metabolism, immune aging, and pharmacokinetics, predicting personalized responses.

These close the design-validation loop, making biology engineering-like.

I recently invested in Frontier Bio, one of your portfolio companies, which is tackling organ failure through 3D biofabrication, stem cell self-assembly, and organ-on-a-chip platforms. Given the complexity of scaling living tissues and moving from research models to transplantable organs, what specifically convinced you this approach has the potential to become a foundational longevity technology rather than remaining primarily a research tool?

At Immortal Dragons, we believe replacement is perhaps better than repair. I often use the analogy of a shattered smart phone: if you break your smart phone screen, no genuis engineer in the world can help you “repair” it, you will always have to replace a screen. So does human body: there are many ways for our body to go wrong, but basically only one way for it to function right, so replacement is an efficient way to eliminate diseases, but we haven’t achieved that yet. This idea also was built on top of scientific reality: longest xenotransplanted kidney survived in a patient’s body for 271 days, reported in October 2025. Synthetic blood vessels can already replace our thigh blood vessels that we used to take out and use in cardiovascular bypass surgery. With FDA approval on xenotransplantation and 3D biofabricated blood vessel, we see a promising future where synthetic body components may become part of foundational longevity technology.

Looking ahead 5 to 10 years, what does success in longevity investing actually look like in practical terms? Are we measuring incremental healthspan gains, regulatory recognition of aging, or something more transformative?

This is a huge topic, incremental gains and regulatory recognition are very important. Beyond this, we see a new form of care model being created, as longevity gets matured and recognized by larger portions of our society. Our current medical care inventive model is a zero sum game. Doctors and hospitals benefit from prescribing extensive care and therapies to patients; on the other hand, patients and insurance companies want to stay as healthy as possible to avoid bills and higher premiums. This is what we call the “sick care” model, where patients only get insurance coverage for sickness, even serious illness. The model itself has no correlation with the idea “prevention”, which is to stay as healthy as possible and intervene beforehand.

A new form of care model could be opened to all patients, even in their healthy ages. Patients can get treatment while you are healthy, just to add years into your healthy years of life. We will leave the insurance company to figure out the cost structure of this model, but fundamentally, it lowers your future bills by taking care of problems now, which is beneficial to patients overall. A specific example: in the future, we imagine patients will be able to replace kidney (or other organs) on demand, with a simple payment and customization process. Patients will no longer have to be terminally ill in certain organs to be able to qualify for organ replacements, and a corresponding cost structure will be built on top of this care model, factoring in all the future benefits of the replacement. We see this as a potential trend.

Thank you for your insights on investing, readers who wish to learn more should visit Immortal Dragons.