Are memecoins merely emblematic of the degeneracy that’s come to define the cryptosphere, or do they instead represent a powerful, Internet-native fusion of culture and finance? Is this the future of both, or simply a Present we must escape?

The Internet is the new America — the centre of the world’s cultural and economic activity — and it’s currently undergoing something of a revolution. Where the overwhelming majority of the Internet’s activity is currently mediated by a few platforms (you know the ones), a small but steadily increasing portion of its value is flowing to a new class of Internet-native institution: “cryptonetworks”. Enabled by blockchains and smart contracts — and other esoteric concepts besides — what these networks offer is the possibility of a fundamentally improved Internet economy; one that squares the interests of the individual with the Reality of our collectivity, all while more equitably rewarding the contributions of its participants. At least that’s what we’re fighting for.

“Crypto” is notoriously hard to grok. While this is partly a function of the conceptual complexity that’s inherent to the subject — transcending, as it does, disciplinary bounds — it’s also due to the fact that the very concept of “crypto” is itself a moving target; perpetually redefining, evolving, becoming. A quick history here is illustrative. In the beginning, crypto was digital money — “a peer-to-peer electronic cash system” . Then it was digital gold. Then it became about the data structure that underpins these concepts, the infamous “blockchain”. As the world was still wrestling with the notion of blockchain, along came “smart contracts” and the idea of a “world computer”. And then in a torrent: DeFi, NFTs, DeSci, DeSoc, DAOs. Because, well, when it rains it pours.

One of the persistent criticisms of crypto is that it represents the ‘hyperfinancialisation’ of things; an obvious and unflattering symptom of our ‘hypercapitalist’ society. If we were to embed crypto into our digital operating system, the argument goes, it would invariably commoditise our online interactions, and thus, naturally, degrade them in some basic sense. Our lives are already financial enough. Therefore, we should seek to resist any further financialisation of the Web. Or at least that’s the basic shape of the argument. 

To anyone paying attention, it appears we’re at an interesting moment in the history of the Web. On the back of ~60 years of Moore’s Law, the Web is now astonishingly responsive and high-resolution, and where >5 billion people (and growing!) are increasingly spending their lives. As remarkable as the Web is, though, it has — for reasons social, economic and technological — become concentrated in the hands of a very small handful of actors whose interests are proving highly misaligned with our broader interests as a global community. Where it was once hoped that the Internet would bring the world together, to enlighten and empower, it’s now effectively breaking things instead. Fortunately, as if just in-time, we’ve happened upon some new ‘technological primitives’ — blockchains, smart contracts, tokens, new forms of cryptography — that seem to offer the promise of a more enlightened Internet. These new primitives we refer to collectively as “crypto”, and the alternative financial system it’s given rise to as the “cryptoeconomy”. And yet, at this point, one would be hard-pressed to argue that the cryptoeconomy, as it stands, goes any real way towards solving the fundamental problems of today’s Web. While NFTs are providing artists and content creators with new economic possibilities and interesting notions of digital identity abound, as citizens of the Internet, we remain overwhelmingly stuck in the ‘Web 2.0’ paradigm, where surveillance capitalism remains the economic engine powering the logic of our increasingly online lives.

Revolutions come in all shapes and sizes. Some are worthy of the name and change the world forever, while others fizzle out and become mere footnotes in the great book of History. Where exactly “Web3” will land on this continuum is, as of this moment, still to be determined, and, as such, the subject of much debate. On one hand, we have the “believers” - the apostles, evangelists, and high priests - who claim that Web3 will be the internet’s (and thus humanity’s) saving grace. While there are many lofty ideas floating about their heads, such folk view the set of innovations - both social and technological - that Web3 represents - i.e. property rights, “decentralization”, programmable money, and community-driven products/platforms - as a kind of grand exorcism being performed, in real-time, on the sins of Web2 (of which, certainly, there are many). On the other hand are the skeptics, the nay-sayers, the “old-guard”, the Web2 sympathizers. Such critics, who come at the space with varying backgrounds and priors, push back on the religious fervour of Web3 evangelists; some even going so far as to dismiss the whole enterprise as entirely mistaken - less revolutionary than a ponzi scheme-fuelled collective hysteria, a fantasy borne of a most peculiar, blockchain-based Reality distortion field. So, which is it? The Second Coming, for real, or just a bunch of pollyannas gone mad?