Crypto is not merit based in practice...it is socially based on [ status, hierarchy, credibility, validity etc. ] That is seemingly clear to most people. But what's not clear...is that merit itself is not neutral. 🔸What is recognised as merit and what isn't...is socially determined. ➡️ The very definition of "merit" is socially constructed. — And when "merit" itself is a social construct..."merit" becomes a narrative. 🤔 So what does "merit" mean in crypto? — Quite simply, merit is only assigned to areas of crypto that are socially accepted as legitimate based on the underlying story. 🔑 Eg. NFT's are perceived as "legit in crypto" as opposed to memecoins... ...because NFT's sell the story of ownership, culture and digital identity while memecoins sell the story of attention, virality and online presence. ➡️ This produces a conceptual binary...one that frames legitimacy through perceived permanence vs temperance. — 🔸 This is a core reason why building NFT projects are widely seen as "merit" while building memecoin projects are widely seen as not. For both projects, the work ethic, long-term thinking, community size, valuation etc. could have similar metrics... ...but the NFT project will still be perceived as having "merit" as opposed to the memecoin project. — 🔑 So what is called “merit” in this space is really a narrative reflection, rather than a true measure of value. And because legitimacy in crypto is socially dictated and narrative perception determines how merit is assigned... ...it also begins to structure who is seen as being credible to listen to and valid to trust. — Hence, what people build, create, trade, participate in or engage with is not seen as mere economic activity... ...it becomes a proxy for identity positioning. 🔸And at that stage, social legitimacy and narrative perception begins to function as a mechanism of authority and power distribution. ➡️ This is the process of how "merit" becomes "identity politics" — As a result, crypto becomes a political environment in which "legitimacy", "merit" and "identity" are perceptively intertwined and socially operated through narratives. And this is why conversations around these topics are often heavily pre-shaped. 🔸Once a narrative frame is established, it constrains the range of interpretations available and so the direction of the conversation becomes narrowed. ➡️And so over time....even a live open discussion becomes less a of a process of new discovery and more a process of reinforcing the existing narrative. — 🔑This means that there effectively is little room for new conceptualisation to emerge, because doing so will confront the pre-existing narrative that is actively being reinforced. Hence, most conversations naturally drift into repetition of the same narrative, in different forms... — 🤔So now the question becomes what is the purpose of conversation? 🔸Because it can be intended to function as a way to surface the different ways a narrative can present itself...that is insightful. But if the purpose is to solve a problem or to address an issue then the conversation becomes misapplied...as it faces a critical structural limitation. — ⚠️Because people having these conversations are not operating outside the narrative...they are participants within it. In a live context, this means: ➡️the hosts are embedded in the narrative ➡️the speakers are embedded in the narrative ➡️the listeners are embedded in the narrative 🔸And so any challenge to the narrative would be experienced not merely as an intellectual challenge, but as a challenge to identity, credibility, legitimacy or positioning. — And that makes confrontation difficult. 🔸Because confronting the narrative is costly. And in a live conversation, that cost is immediately felt.