Camp 1 are those who dispute the US is in decline.
Many people are in denial. Some get mad if you point at qualitative and quantitative evidence.
But only the paranoid survive. Denial of decline means you cannot even diagnose the cause, let alone take measures to reverse it.
Camp 2 believes the US has declined, but it can be reversed.
While they have *very* different visions of what that reversal means, both centrist liberals like my friend @Noahpinion and MAGA types want to see America “awake from its slumber” and start kicking butt again.
Camp 3 are those who believe the US is in decline, it can’t be reversed, and that this is actually good.
This includes people on the anti-imperialist left, on the paleocon right, and many foreign powers — not just traditional rivals, but others that don’t like US intervention.
Camp 4 is where I am. I think the US was on balance a force for good till recently. I don’t think decline is reversible — it’s barely acknowledged. But I also think we’ll miss it when it’s gone.
The US has now played the role of global policeman for decades. It’s had a mixed record. And the American public has grown justifiably tired of the expense in blood and treasure.
Perhaps sensing this, just months after the Afghanistan defeat, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Leading to many cynical memes from Ukrainians like one below. Of course, we must avoid direct US/RU conflict as it could lead to nuclear escalation.
But decline meant deterrence failed.
Mearsheimer correctly predicted this years ago.
The US encouraged Ukraine to take a more aggressive stance than it would have otherwise. But the commitment was insufficient to deter.
In part because decline has meant decline in foreign policy realism.
If we are realists, we see that in Hong Kong, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine the US — understandably — is no longer ready to pay any price, bear any burden.
There are limits. You can’t rely on them for deterrence. Other countries are realizing this, and arming up accordingly.
Separately but relatedly there is the question of what kind of order the US can even deliver.
The US way of life was once the best. But globalization closed the gap. Others rose. And after years of political chaos, US soft power eroded. Others now think they have a better model.
Putting it together, the US is in decline. It lacks the will — and manufacturing base — to be the “arsenal of democracy”.
As it withdraws from physical intervention, some countries may grow aggressive. Others may arm up in response. Won’t be fun! But there is a *little* hope…
Many of the ideals the US once imperfectly defended with munitions — free speech, free trade, rule-of-law — we can now imperfectly defend with encryption.
Btw, for the sake of completeness there is a fifth possibility: the US has already transformed into a digital power that is now financially nuking Russia.
The physical in this view is actually just downstream, and we have been weighting it too heavily. We’ll see if this works.
1) Until five minutes ago, the West was run by NPCs. You slotted into your role, waited decades to be president, propped up the postwar order, established the establishment.
2) Now it's run by high agency people. You can just do things people. Tech people, Trump people. Because the Internet increases variance. It means that small groups[1,2] of highly motivated individuals — as small as one, like Satoshi or Elon or Trump — can change the world.
3) But there are limits to agency. Historic forces, genetic constraints, physical limits. A high agency person can’t just grind their way into starting for the Lakers. They can’t intuit the preimage to a cryptographic hash. They can’t turn rye into wheat by pure willpower.
4) That way lies Neo-Lysenkoism. Lysenko was a communist who denied that genetic constraints existed at all — and executed Darwinists who thought they did. He believed rye could become wheat by pure willpower.
5) And, confusingly, the same NPCs that just ran the West also believe in a Neo-Lysenkoism where a Down's Syndrome patient[3] is only constrained by societal expectation rather than unfortunate chromosomal aberration. Genetics denial also underpins their insistence that XX=XY. And economics denial underpins most socialist policy.
6) So — wait. What then is the difference between the determined technocapitalist idea that “you can just do things” and the delusional communist idea that “constraints do not exist”? Does the far left also in some sense have a high agency model of the world?
7) To complicate this further, the technolibertarian view on agency often doesn't extend to the rest of the world. Deepseek can also just do things. As the military says, "the enemy also gets a vote."[4]
8) Moreover: high agency, taken to the ultra-alpha extreme, can impede large-scale cooperation. There is a reason beta cooperation arose[5]. Every man cannot be a leader on everything; indeed, he can only at most lead on one thing.
9) Steve Jobs' famous memo on how dependent he was on his species[6] acknowledged this. You are probably not leading the engineering of the screen you're looking at now. And you can't become a good leader till you've become a good follower, as you don't even know what good instructions look like.
10) As I think through this, I think the key distinction is numerical. The technocapitalist is soberly enumerating known constraints and calculating ways to solve for X=Y, while the delusional communist is simply asserting that XX=XY. And the technocapitalist also knows how to build teams, manage budgets, handle personnel, and generally acknowledge reality.
11) Or, to paraphrase Reinhold Niebuhr: may God give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be, and the mathematics to know the difference.
We can just do things.
But only if you can do the math.
This post was spurred by the realization that:
(a) I generally agree with the high agency view of tech founders
(b) I generally disagree with the Neo-Lysenkoism of the far left
(c) I respect but am concerned by the high cooperation of the Far East, which is distinct from high agency
(d) I also respect physical laws greater than any man
[3]: Unfortunate Neo-Lysenkoist ad that is essentially genetics denial: x.com/the_beardedsin…
[4]: I don't think open source is the enemy. It's a turn of phrase to emphasize that the "high agency" model often doesn't account for other actors' high agency. High agency means high global volatility and high unpredictability.
[5]: China's cooperation game is a visual depiction of the complement to high agency: x.com/PicturesFoIder…
[6]: Steve Jobs was an extremely high-agency uber-alpha by anyone's definition, and even he acknowledged how dependent he was on the rest of his species.
Oh, and here's a cite on Lysenko.
Communists have always been denying biological reality, but they used to do it for plants. archive.is/X3Ip9
Overnight, the vast majority of the net worth ($59B) of the next President of the United States is now held in cryptocurrency. This will hold true even with a 90% drop.
What are the implications?
1) First, President Trump just went from crypto being perhaps 1% of his net worth to 90%+. Many early Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana holders experienced the same thing.
2) Second, this phenomenon — the overnight relative devaluation of all non-crypto holdings — will be experienced by billions globally within our lifetime as fiat dies.
3) Third, every politician, influencer, and celebrity worldwide is watching mouth agog at the phenomenon. They’ll wait to see how it shakes out politically and financially, and if the memecoin shows staying power — big if! — they may do their own.
4) Next, if we do then get a large market with thousands of personal memecoins, it may actually be ok, because every buyer knows what they’re buying: the potential future brand value of the meme.
5) Much depends on how much value the TRUMP asset holds, if any. Other celeb memecoins went to zero quickly, but Trump is Trump, and has the unique qualities of (a) 100M+ followers, (b) daily non-stop coverage, (c) presidential immunity, and (d) unprecedented control over the government.
6) So, whatever form of political counterattack comes his way, Trump is now strongly incentivized to legalize cryptocurrency in the most aggressive way possible.
7) Of course, this will be attacked as a conflict of interest. But Biden took 10% for the big guy, and Pelosi traded her stocks, and Hillary monetized her speeches, and Podesta had his $300B climate slush fund, and Obama got his Netflix deal. All became millionaires via various deniable forms of payola for Democrats.
8) So, Trump’s rebuttal may be that he’s just doing everything in public. His claim may be that disclosure solves the conflict of interest problem.
9) And that may be true, but it doesn’t fully solve the *alignment* problem. As context: the CEO of a company is typically one of the largest shareholders, but he is aligned with all his employees because they hold the same shares. All holders rise and fall as one, ideally.
10) By analogy, you would ideally want the President to be aligned with his citizens, such that they all held (say) USA coin, which gave some dividend from the profits of the USA. Kind of like the Alaska Permanent Fund.
11) So, one way of solving the alignment problem would be for Trump to airdrop some TRUMP to every US citizen. However, it might be easier for him to just send an email in his personal capacity to every Trump supporter offering them some free TRUMP.
12) Specifically: he could give 72 hours notice and all kinds of Democrats would also sign up for his personal email list, just to get the airdrop.
13) Would it be legal? Well, it is certainly legal for politicians to email out *requests* for money. But to my knowledge no politician has attempted a personal airdrop before, to *give* away money — and certainly not at this scale.
13) At current valuations, Trump could give $100 of locked up TRUMP to all 77M Trump voters via airdrop and it would “only” cost him $7.7B in an asset that was worth zero two days ago. Heck, he could give $500 per person and still have $20B+ left over.
14) Yes, it would cost Trump some of his asset to do this. But if you needed to join his email list to get the coin, and if the airdrop could be effected without any cap gains, it would “pay for itself” by turning his base into even more rabid supporters.
15) It could even give him the political support necessary to completely destroy the Democrat patronage machine. Basically, by joining Trump’s email list and supporting his crypto policies you’d get a kind of UBI.
16) And if 77M Americans are also benefiting from TRUMP, charges of conflict of interest go away. It’d be a new kind of social contract, a personal relationship between President & citizen.
Worth thinking about.
To defend the asset after a potential crash, you need a huge base of holders. Not 770k, but 77M in the US.
So, the ideas below are fine, but the scalable strategy is an airdrop by the issuer. It boils down to enlightened self interest. Will Trump airdrop TRUMP to his email list?
But if it suddenly gained 77M Republican voters as users, and held them over time — very nontrivial ifs — it would gain value simply from the size of the distribution.
There is no wealth creation. Every buy order is simply matched by a sell order. And after an initial spike, the price eventually crashes and the last buyers lose everything.
* It’s actually negative sum if the platform takes a cut.
If you want to gamble as entertainment, in moderation, like at Las Vegas, ok.
If you are a professional trader, ok.
But most should buy assets that retain their value over the long run.
It is sometimes possible to add use cases to a memecoin, or to keep it in the headlines to keep its value aloft indefinitely. And we’ve seen examples of that as well.
But in general, don’t invest anything you can’t afford to lose.
You are free to consider any asset a memecoin, and I’m not offended by that, but I’m happy to explain why I think Bitcoin is different.
1) Bitcoin is the base layer asset of a blockchain with ~800 Th/s in hashrate across hundreds of datacenters worldwide.
2) It hasn’t been hacked in 15+ years, and has survived several 80-90% drawdowns.
3) It has hundreds of millions of holders worldwide and a global network effect.
4) It grew gradually over time, rather than all at once, and the mining issuance schedule limits how much can be sold by any one party.
5) It has an “industrial use” in the sense that the Bitcoin blockchain permits hard to fake cryptographic proofs-of-existence.
6) It is the first of its kind and pioneered the entire space.
In short, I think Bitcoin has proven its staying power.
What does retribalization look like in the physical world? This is Germany before Bismarck.
Ah, it’s actually not the start.
Congress was highly polarized by 2012.
And Twitter by 2017.
Then Gab and Truth broke away in 2020.
Now Bluesky and Threads in 2024.