What happens when everything becomes Memecoin?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
What happens when everything becomes Memecoin?
From Trust to Isolation: How Incel Ideology Erodes Our Society
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy: kyla scanlon
Translation: Baicai Blockchain
The Tragedy of the Commons
In economics, the "tragedy of the commons" refers to shared resources—such as farmland, fisheries, or clean air—being overexploited until they collapse. Today, we are witnessing a modern version of this tragedy, extending beyond tangible assets to include the foundational infrastructure of our society:
-
Social commons: trust, relationships, community.
-
Cognitive commons: curiosity, education, critical thinking.
-
Economic commons: stable markets, shared prosperity, institutional trust.
-
Informational commons: language, reality, basic consensus.
Unlike traditional commons that collapse due to physical depletion, these intangible resources are eroding due to systemic incentives that reward isolation, compliance, instability, and division.
This may sound extreme, but I believe we’re moving toward an societal operating system of “incelism”—no longer just an online subculture, but the default mode of society. Incelism refers to a group of people who feel involuntarily excluded from romantic relationships and often exhibit emotions like resentment, hatred, self-pity, racism, misogyny, and world-weariness. This mindset is now eroding our commons: isolation, outsourced cognition, flattened identities, and performative rage have become profitable norms. Governance and culture are dominated by memes, resentment, and algorithmically fueled anger.
Social Commons
A stable society begins with stable relationships—friends, neighbors, coworkers, families. These connections form the foundation upon which abstract concepts like democracy or economic growth can function.
But things aren’t looking good. Many have written about this, such as Derek Thompson’s cover story in The Atlantic, The Anti-Social Century, which vividly describes how we are drifting apart. Meaningful connections across gender, class, and political lines appear to be breaking down. Post-pandemic social infrastructure is warped; we’ve lost shared norms and collective rituals. What has replaced them? Transactional connections, platformized loneliness, and algorithmic tribes offering false belonging—merely reflecting your preferences back at you. Social interactions (from friendship to romance) are increasingly economized, optimized, ranked, and gamified. (Of course, the internet and dating apps have their bright sides, but the negative trends seem to dominate.)
A society built on transactional interactions and shallow ties is inherently fragile. People who cannot trust each other in daily life won’t suddenly trust one another when voting. Those unable to sustain friendships or partnerships may also struggle to commit to democratic institutions or civic engagement. Without solid relational foundations, a stable democracy cannot endure.
Without real community bonds, civic participation declines. As Guy Debord warned, politics devolves into performance rather than substance.
Cognitive Commons
We no longer teach people to think—we teach them to comply.
Curiosity is now seen as risky or inefficient.
This is a pattern: nobody wants to take risks—not elected officials, not 19-year-olds choosing college majors. Because in this economy, everything becomes obedience. As Italian philosopher Umberto Eco warned in *Ur-Fascism*, societies don’t collapse overnight; they erode through small compromises, by gradually normalizing submission as civic virtue.
Take Cluely, for example. This product lets you wear glasses to “cheat” during dates—part marketing stunt (how to provoke outrage for clicks), part reflection of today’s cognitive commons ethos. The rise of AI companies forces us to reconsider what it means to be human—and their answer seems to be “efficiency and optimization.” Maybe that really is the answer.
Cluely’s manifesto declares: “We built it so you’ll never have to think alone again.” AI is no longer a tool to assist thought—it aims to replace thinking altogether. Critical thinking, ambiguity, creativity—those qualities that define the best of humanity—are being replaced by optimized instant answers.
This is everywhere. In politics, nuance is dangerous; Congress dares not challenge President Trump. Even in leisure, hobbies are measured by “side-hustle potential.” As Anne Helen Petersen wrote in a brilliant piece: “The logic we’ve internalized is vicious and enduring: if you spend time on something that could make money, not making money is financially irresponsible.” The obsessive pursuit and monetization of hobbies isn’t just escapism—it’s a response to educational burnout, economic instability, and performative living. It’s how people assert identity and agency within structural constraints. Optimization, efficiency, monetization—the cycle repeats!
Without curiosity and critical thinking, we become easy to manipulate, vulnerable to polarized narratives, and ultimately lose the capacity for independent judgment—a cornerstone of democratic citizenship.
Economic Commons
Policy as emotional projection—when those who despise the system become the system itself.
The economy depends on trust—not just in money or policy, but in the reliable rules and institutions surrounding them. Today, that credibility is evaporating. Why? Because economic policy has become a stage for personal resentment, emotional reactions, and political theater. I’ve written many times about the issue of “trust.” Take tariffs: they could be strategic tools, but recently they’ve been anything but. Rates shift arbitrarily, supply chains are disrupted, businesses are left in limbo.
According to Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent privately admitted the instability during a closed-door investor meeting arranged by JPMorgan Chase. He acknowledged the current 145% tariff on China is unsustainable, hinted at an imminent de-escalation (despite no negotiations having begun), and noted—per Eamon Javers—that container bookings between the U.S. and China have dropped 64%. He made clear: “The goal isn’t decoupling,” but pushing China toward a consumer-driven economy and the U.S. toward manufacturing.
This is absurd, because it suggests we’re entering the “Chinese century.” America is giving up its most comfortable seat. When you see Chinese manufacturing—like Xiaomi’s factory producing “one phone per second, zero production workers (only maintenance staff), lights off, running 24/7”—you have to ask: what’s the point?
Even more troubling: why are these crucial details shared privately at a JPMorgan investor event instead of publicly and transparently? Partly because no one dares directly challenge Trump—Bessent seemed to leak much of this precisely because public criticism is too politically risky. Another reason might be some unspoken “handshake—high five—you’re one of us—go trade on this” understanding.
Meanwhile, publicly, both sides vacillate between radical posturing and vague promises. Trump says he won’t “get tough” with China, signaling a thaw—at least for now. He’s also dropped talk of firing Powell. Markets naturally rally on such news—but it’s just noise. The economy will still suffer from these swings.
Markets are now running entirely on “vibes.” Can you blame them? Look at these headlines—they read like someone talking to themselves.
China says it’s open to negotiations, but only with mutual respect and reduced threats. Of course they would! By contrast, the U.S. in talks with Japan seems like a child in a toy store: “We don’t know what we want, but we definitely want something.” The result? Headline-driven market volatility and diplomatic deadlock.
Martin Wolf on *Odd Lots* put it perfectly: the U.S., thanks to the dollar’s reserve status, enjoys massive economic power and can easily run large deficits. Yet it seems determined to squander this advantage through chaotic, emotion-driven policy decisions. Wolf said bluntly: “You’re rich, you’re safe—unless you screw it up badly enough. So why are you choosing to screw it up so badly? That’s where we are.”
We all know (even initial tariff supporters admit) this governance is deeply irrational—policy shaped not by economic logic, but by resentment and projection. There’s no plan—Bessent and Lutnick had to secretly persuade Trump to drop tariffs behind Navarro’s back. Look at this!
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans brace for impact. CEOs of Walmart, Target, and Home Depot privately warn Trump that tariffs could disrupt supply chains and empty shelves. Who benefits from trade wars? According to NBER, companies connected to the government! No wonder Tim Cook made that call!
Nationwide hiring freezes are spreading, causing real grassroots economic pain—paid for with abstract resentment. Goldman estimates full federal workforce cuts (including contractors and grant-funded employees) could reach 1.2 million, tourism losses $90 billion, roughly 0.3% of GDP. Real costs. For what?
We are burning the economic commons—not because it makes sense, but because our political leaders conflate economic policy with personal grudges. Chaotic markets thrive; trust evaporates.
Informational Commons
We no longer share a common reality—only overlapping simulations.
A simple test for whether a space has healthy informational commons: can you describe reality without immediately sparking an argument? Can we agree on shared language, basic facts, or even word meanings? The answer is increasingly: no. I wrote about this back in 2022.
The informational commons—language, reality, and basic consensus—is collapsing because we’ve monetized division. Social media platforms aren’t built for clarity or understanding—they’re optimized for engagement, outrage, and polarization. Algorithms don’t reward nuance; they reward certainty, controversy, and emotional triggers.
What replaces shared reality? Loyalty-based reality, tribal reality, personalized reality! We no longer debate ideas or solutions—we argue over whose facts matter, whose feelings count, whose truth wins. Truth itself becomes a loyalty test, not a common ground. Without shared informational commons, cooperation becomes impossible. We don’t solve problems—we argue over who defines them! Language is weaponized; reality is fragmented.
Conclusion
So what now? Bitcoin is rising again. Since “Liberation Day,” it has decoupled from the Nasdaq, up 10% while the S&P 500 fell 6%. Its surge isn’t optimism—it’s a direct vote on collapsing trust (and it’s already diversified away from the U.S.). Rising gold, silver, defense stocks, and crypto reflect the turbulence across social, cognitive, economic, and informational domains.
These commons are being slowly eroded, monetized, and exploited. Social trust has become transactional loneliness. Curiosity has been replaced by compliance and cognitive outsourcing. Stable economic governance has given way to chaotic performance. Shared reality has splintered into competing tribes and personalized truths.
In other words, we’ve institutionalized incelism—not just romantic isolation, but socially embedded, profit-driven disconnection. The market implications are clear: as trust erodes, volatility rises, and traditional safe-haven assets regain dominance. Investors either gain insider access to government secrets or diversify into precious metals, infrastructure, dividend-paying companies, and global portfolios to hedge against domestic policy unpredictability.
The social infrastructure hasn’t vanished forever. Unlike depleted fisheries or farmland, these intangible resources can be regenerated—by choosing connection over transactions, critical thinking over compliance, substance over performance, and shared reality over isolated tribes.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@kylascan
