I don’t think you can rely on the notion that some conception of normative ethics can be expected to represent some sort of center of gravity, which pulls individual behavior, and by extension, collective behavior towards functional outcomes that more closely align with that under their own weight.

This is actually at the middle of my objections to many arguments people make about the “inevitability” of certain futures: be it hyperbitcoinization, or the belief we will regress towards something more like an anarcho-capitalist future, merely because of some functional behavioralist weight that these supposedly universalist conceptions of ethics supposedly tend towards. Because those systems are somehow more "self-consistent" in terms of their ethical constructions (a point I object to, but will not do so here), or that the a priori arguments around the superior incentives in some conception of economics will wash away the hypocrisy.

I believe these sorts of arguments are fanciful thinking, and indirectly advocate for depoliticization. That we don't have to engage in political power games to advance our interests. Instead, we can simply wait for the hypocrisies and self-contradictions of the current systems of power to play out, and can expect future outcomes to "naturally" come into alignment with some notion of universal ethics and purer notions of economic incentives.

I just don't buy that. I know it makes me feel like a party pooper to say that. But I don't think the completely a priori arguments that get made in that direction seem reasonable against what I understand about human nature (particularly as it pertains to group dynamics), collective action problems (like classic tragedy of the commons issues), or empirical counterexamples from history itself.

I try to push a pro-bitcoin narrative through the lens of accepting these as problems. Rather than assuming these problems just "go away" when everything comes out in the wash.