Beyond the Tech Bro: Rethinking Hero Worship in Crypto
Thank you to Mert, Brady, and Chase for reviewing earlier drafts of this article.
Introduction
Crypto is filled with tantalizing figures. From its benevolent, anonymous creator to the many Madoff clones, we are in no shortage of examples. Their personalities have become sacrosanct—a beacon of light to blindly follow into a new promised future. While decentralized, crypto tends to centralize around these personalities, especially those known for spearheading innovation, cultivating ideas, and inspiring people to accelerate crypto’s development. Or, more simply, the ones that promise “money go up.” At first glance, this can be generalized to other aspects of life. For example, in history, figures like Alexander the Great, Winston Churchill, and Napoleon are the bastions of greatness—history can be seen as the culmination of great people. Crypto is no different. Where would we be without Satoshi's contributions? Vitalik’s? Chaum’s? Finney’s? Or, Szabo’s?
There’s this attractive, innate Randian idea that the things that actually get done in life can largely be explained as the actions of a select few charismatic figures. We tend to centralize around these figures, creating cults of personality. However, rarely is history, crypto, or the nature of things accurately explained by one person, one theory, or one cult.
This article explores the tension between individual influence and collective action in shaping innovation. While charismatic figures often serve as catalysts and symbols for change, true progress and innovation arise from a complex interplay between visionary leaders and the broader social movements they inspire and are consequently shaped by. Crypto has a cult of personality problem, and this article attempts to shift the narrative.
People That Do, People That Don’t
There is an innate Randian idea that everyone can be categorized into two groups: people that do, and people that don’t. In life, it’s easy to attribute progress to the work of a select few. It was Steve Jobs who released the iPhone. Satoshi Nakomoto launched Bitcoin. Alan Turing cracked the Enigma code. This simplistic view of progress renders unequivocal realities devoid of the specificity and nuance in which this progress actually occurred. Of course, Jobs wasn’t the only person who had worked on the iPhone. Satoshi stood on the shoulders of cryptographic giants. Alan Turing was one of many brilliant codebreakers, and leaders for that fact, at Hut 8.
This simplistic approach to progress is nothing new. The Great Man Theory is an approach to the study of history proposed by Scottish essayist, historian, and philosopher Thomas Carlyle. He posits that history can largely be explained by the impact of great men. These men are highly influential and unique individuals who have a decisive historical effect due to their natural abilities. These men possessed extraordinary leadership skills, heroic courage, superior intellect, or divine inspiration, which allowed them to mark their names in the annals of time.
For example, William the Conqueror founded the mighty Anglo-Norman kingdom, which produced profound political, administrative, and social changes in the British Isles. Without his rule, Norman French wouldn’t have become the language of the court, government, and upper class, fundamentally changing the English language and how you would’ve read this article. His rule introduced feudalism, surnames, manorialism, castles, aristocracy, and centralized governance in England. Without him, western civilization would look completely different. Of course, William the Conqueror is not the only person who had a decisive impact on history. For example, to name a few: Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Queen Victoria, Attila the Hun, Mahatma Gandhi, Ghengis Khan, Nelson Mandela, Cleopatra, and Leonardo da Vinci have all had a big impact.
This theory holds that certain individuals possess extraordinary traits that make their rise to leadership almost inevitable. While traits like charisma, courage, and intellect stand out, Mark Twain offered a different perspective. He suggested that leaders do not emerge purely out of their own greatness but due to widespread moral cowardice. Twain calls it the commanding feature of the makeup of 9,999 men out of 10,000—no revolt against public infamy or oppression in the history of the world has ever been begun but by one daring man, while the rest timidly wait and reluctantly join.
This dynamic is perhaps more starkly illustrated in Ian Kershaw’s analysis of Hitler’s “negative” greatness. In Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, Kershaw challenges the Great Man Theory by stating Hitler was an unremarkable person. Instead, his leadership skills and historical impact stemmed from how others viewed him and his ability to project charismatic authority—a concept Max Weber explored in his work on leadership. This suggests that “greatness,” or, for our purposes, historical decisiveness, isn’t necessarily tied to inherent noble qualities but to the ability to catalyze mass movements through charismatic influence.
Modern psychology has further transformed this understanding of charismatic leadership to define charisma in terms of practical outcomes. That is, charismatic leaders are effective. Thus, the prevailing view of leadership has evolved from an innate, almost mystic quality proposed by Carlyle to one that produces measurable outcomes and, therefore, has a decisive impact on their surrounding environment and, ultimately, history itself. Yet again, Rand’s binary of “doers and non-doers” persists with this line of reasoning. Perhaps it is nowhere more prominent today than in the mythology of Silicon Valley, where the ability to drive change has become the primary measure of leadership.
The Rise of the Broletariat and Chad Maximalism in Tech
In line with this top-down tradition of progress, Rand’s binary has found its ultimate expression in tech culture, where the ability to “move fast and break things” has become the defining characteristic that separates doers from the rest of humanity. Tech leaders are civilization’s protagonists, archetypal builders who, and who alone, possess the vision and capacity to reshape the reality that others merely occupy. Tech leaders are singular figures whose drive transcends progress.
A new breed of “great men” has emerged in Silicon Valley. Their battlefields are Twitter threads and boardrooms rather than the actual war grounds many of Caryle’s figures are used to. Enter the tech bro—a person with a particular mix of unapologetic ambition, casual machismo, and technological evangelism bordering on hubris. Like Weber’s charismatic leaders, their authority stems not from traditional credentials or expertise but from their perceived ability to manifest the future through sheer force of will. From 10x developers to CEOs, they embody a new form of maximalism that measures worth purely through output and impact. Progress does not happen through careful deliberation or collective effort but through the bold actions of visionaries who dare to think differently. Naturally, these visionaries present themselves as Chads.
The age of dork is over. The time of Chad has come.
While “Chad” originated as slang for an attractive, confident male, it has evolved into something more in tech circles. Here, it presents itself as a performative display of masculine success that goes beyond building profitable companies. Today’s tech leaders are cultivating larger-than-life personas, blending technological prowess with hypermasculine ideas.
Take Mark Zuckerberg, for example. He embodies this Chad maximalism with his new haircut, new clothes, and videos circulating of him wakeboarding while drinking a beer and holding an American flag. There’s also Jeff Bezos who, in recent years, has gone from the bookish Amazon founder to a muscled mogul on a superyacht posing with his new girlfriend. We also have Jack Dorsey’s intense wellness routines and Bryan Johnson’s vampiric quest for immortality. Each tech bro has curated displays of physical prowess and lifestyle optimizations to become modern expressions of the Great Man archetype.
Yet, the Chad archetype transcends mere physical looks. Take Elon Musk, for example. While not known for his conventional attractiveness (and even memed for pictures of him shirtless on a yacht in Mykonos), he stands as a Chad in the pantheon of tech bros. He is the prime maverick innovator. Here, Chad-dom is about embodying a certain kind of assertive, unapologetic success. Undeniably, Elon has aura—he’s sending people to Mars while being a top 20 Diablo player, marking a fusion of ambition and expected tech bro nerdiness.
Breaking the Glass Ceiling With Diamond Hands
Of course, Chad maximalism has its feminine counterpart in tech’s girl boss mythology. This neologism denotes someone “whose success is defined in opposition to the masculine business world in which she swims upstream.” While the girl boss archetype originated with figures like Paris Hilton, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and Gwyneth Paltrow, it has taken on a particular significance in tech. Here, the girl boss must be disruptive enough to be taken seriously by her fellow bros while maintaining an Instagram-perfect image that proves she can “have it all.”
The result here is another carefully curated performance of empowerment that reduces complex innovation and leadership into something of personal branding. In crypto, female leaders often face heightened scrutiny about their technical credentials while being expected to perform a particular brand of feminine leadership. Take influential figures like Katie Haun, a former federal prosecutor who rose to prominent venture capital status, or Laura Shin, who continually shapes crypto’s narrative via investigative journalism. Leaders like Meltem Demirors and Christine Moy have made substantial contributions to institutional adoption. These are all powerful figures. However, the media tends to focus on their ability to break into the boys’ club rather than their actual work and innovations.
Elizabeth Holmes’s deliberate Steve Jobs impression, from the black turtlenecks to her artificially deepened voice, represents the extreme end of this phenomenon. Holmes highlights the pressure of adopting traditionally masculine leadership traits while maintaining feminine appeal. Her fake-it-till-you-make-it persona uncovers a larger, broader pressure on women in tech to perform technical competence and feminine authenticity constantly. Even when successful, these girl bosses must navigate a complex landscape where their social media is scrutinized differently than their Chad counterparts—they must carefully curate their image to balance approachability with authority. Innovation and leadership become second to maintaining public appearances.
Despite the blatantly sexist, elitist undertones, this fusion of the Chad and the girl boss into the pantheon of tech bro maximalism points to a larger truth: whether adhering to overtly masculine or feminine archetypes purported within tech, this obsession with heroic individual narratives continues to overshadow the collaborative nature of progress. While these individuals are impressive, the mythology of the solo visionary perpetuates a dangerous narrative that progress results solely from individual genius rather than collective effort. This spawns intense cults of personality.
(De)centralized Heroes: Crypto’s Cult of Personality Problem
The belief that progress results from individual genius rather than collective effort begets fierce cults of personality. These cults, which result from systematic efforts to create idealized, heroic images of leaders through total adulation, have taken root in tech culture. We see larger-than-life personas announce real change, and, whether it be the desire to live vicariously through them or model their way of life hoping to improve our own, we hold onto them as idols to worship.
This deification has taken on new forms. Tweets are taken as gospel. Product announcements are divine revelations shared online with evangelical zeal. This dynamic is amplified by the prevailing techno-utopian sentiment, which holds that any blockers for these visionary leaders impede progress itself. The titans of tech drive advancement for everyone else, and any attempts to slow their plans are blockers to opportunity. From the early cypherpunks of the 1980s who championed untraceable identities to evade government interference to Marc Andreessen’s pro-progress manifesto, It’s Time to Build, decrying bureaucratic inefficiency, the narrative is consistent: the Chad innovator must be unfettered to enact real change and drive true progress. This sentiment of unrestrained innovation only helps to reinforce cults of personality.
While not new—historically, cults of personality formed via mass media, propaganda, spectacle, and state-organized demonstrations—the Internet has supercharged this phenomenon. Social media platforms and the twenty-four-hour news cycle enable the rapid spread of carefully crafted personas. Modern personality cults are secular, usually male-centric mass media narratives that target anyone popular online.
Of course, if you take the most chronically online group of individuals positioned at the bleeding edge of progress, this dynamic is amplified to unprecedented levels. Nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in crypto. While blockchains promise a decentralized future, the ecosystem has paradoxically become increasingly centered around a select few charismatic figures. We have been too quick to support the countless larger-than-life personas who garnered notoriety on social media. The CEXs that collapsed in 2022 all had a young, brash leader whose outsized influence—not by virtue of intellect or economic talent—stemmed from their online personas. Do Kwon was a notorious troll; he infamously tweeted several arrogant takes before Terra’s collapse. Su Zhu has a repertoire of legendary tweets from the 2021 bullrun that have aged like milk since 3AC’s bankruptcy.
Perhaps most emblematic of crypto’s cult of personality problem was Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the disheveled yet brilliant wunderkind who carefully crafted a persona that sought institutional trust. SBF deliberately engineered a persona as a figurehead of a trustworthy and law-abiding segment of crypto that was focused on investor and client protection (as well as profits). However, this was far from the case. As the de facto leader of Alameda Research Ltd and FTX, SBF routinely flouted investor protection, taking several high-risk bets with client funds. He sought celebrity endorsements (sorry Tom Brady) to reinforce the notion of FTX as a safe and trusted exchange. But, of course, we all know how this turned out.
Alex Mashinsky, founder of Celsius Network LLC, also stands out. Advertised as a crypto lender and a “bank,” Celsius undertook fully collateralized loans, which were, therefore, safe bets. However, unbeknownst to their depositors, they also took several under-collateralized loans and placed risky bets on other crypto ventures and directional bets. Intertwined with shady business deals with Almeda and the fact that they never actually burned unbought tokens from their ICO, Celsius collapsed. Through all of this, Mashinsky remained a public figure holding various AMAs. Even as Celsius was collapsing, Mashinsky was on Twitter reply-guying to naysayers. On June 11th, 2022, in response to rumors about Celsius restricting withdrawals, he famously asked if anyone knew one person who had a problem with withdrawing from Celsius. The next day, Celsius “paused” investor withdrawals.
Even after Celsius declared bankruptcy, Mashinsky fired up his Twitter fingers to combat the “false” claims against Celsius. Similarly, SBF continued public discourse after FTX’s collapse, citing some interesting excuses and justifications. Both used their persona to present themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. They were simply good-willed businessmen with enemies out to get them, and these enemies were the true cause of their misfortune. Binance’s public run on FTX caused them to collapse, obviously not the fraudulent misrepresentations and criminal recklessness by their benevolent CEO. The CEL sellers and shorters caused the asset to fall into a death spiral. Salient to both cases is the notion that economic crime is rationalized as simply borrowing money with no intent to steal. “I’m no criminal,” they lamented, “I only meant to borrow it!”
This sentiment is problematic because, at an organizational level, it indicates the normalization of deviance within the organization. This is similar to the insider traders of Wall Street in the 1980s when a relaxed atmosphere led to a deterioration of caution. Crypto is no different, as most jurisdictions lack proper regulatory frameworks. The lack of effective regulation gives rise to the suggestion to employees that the ostensibly illegal actions they are commanded to do in the name of decentralization are condoned by those in power. The idea is that the tech bro CEO, with their infinite wisdom and connections in high places, knows how to maximize profitable opportunities while navigating the grey zones of legality.
These cults of personality elevate tech bros to quasi-celebrity status, attributing to them market-leading competence and the ability to deliver successful outcomes. FTX had no board of directors, and why would they need one when they had SBF as their benevolent leader? As Kilby quotes in Taming Fraud in Crypto’s Wild West, “FTX is the marriage of various fraud schemes in the age of the Kardashians.” Investors are so captivated by wow-factor personalities, all the glitz and glamour; why would they need to do due diligence?
Crypto is a socioeconomic sphere at the bleeding edge of progress, moving far beyond what regulators can monitor. It encapsulates the mantra of moving fast and breaking things in its purest form. When everyone around you says, “Yes, that’s a great idea!” and has an untrammeled belief in your capabilities, your day-to-day goes completely unscrutinized. You become the system of checks and balances. And when you start to believe everything said about you, a circular rationale forms—your decision must be the right decision because it’s your decision, and you are someone who makes good decisions. Nobody is perfect. The issue isn’t making the wrong decision; it’s that there’s nobody to correct the course.
The tech industry’s cult of personality is damaging as the deification of leaders has real consequences. We proliferate larger-than-life personas to exacerbate the media’s obsession with celebrities. In turn, we become obsessively fascinated with tech bros who have achieved now quasi-god status. We believe that successful people have some sort of power and authority that commands respect. And, if we follow these types of people, we’ll set ourselves on the right path. We need something to help us determine how we fit into this world. Naturally, those seen at the forefront of making a difference for the benefit of humanity become guides in our secular world.
This dynamic is dangerous within crypto—the stakes extend beyond mere technological innovation to people’s entire livelihoods. The promise of decentralization has led to concentrated power in the hands of the few. Charismatic leaders can move markets with their tweets, launch projects overnight, and wipe out people’s life savings in a single keystroke. The paradox is striking: the technology designed to eliminate the middleman has created a new class of trusted oracles.
Perhaps the solution lies in returning to crypto’s original promise of trustless systems and collective governance. Bitcoin has been remarkably resistant to crypto’s cult of personality problem. Of course, Satoshi’s unexpected disappearance, speculation on whether he would return, and Roger Keith Ver’s transcendence into “Bitcoin Jesus” espouse explicit religious undertones. And, the fact that crypto displays the classic hallmarks of culthood—apocalypticism, the promise of utopia for believers, vitriolic denouncement of heretical insiders (e.g., more recently, Max Resnick leaving flat E(ar)th for perfectly round Solana-land), shunning external critics—is damaging to this line of reasoning. However, there is no clear “leader” of Bitcoin. What has resulted is a robust, decentralized, and meritocratic ecosystem. Sure, there were growing pains, but Bitcoin’s vision has been achieved without a titular figure at the helm. We have a system that works not because we trust its stewards but because we don’t have to.
Bitcoin’s relative success without a central figure points to something more fundamental: the power of ideas over individuals. While the history of progress is intertwined with archetypes that give rise to cults of personality, the most enduring crypto projects are built on powerful ideas that transcend their creators. The core concepts driving crypto—decentralization, trustlessness, transparency, and individual sovereignty—have proven more resilient than a single leader.
Going Beyond: The Potency of Ideas
V for Vendetta (2005) is one of my favorite films. It is a dystopian political action film that follows V, an anarchist and masked freedom fighter, under a fascist, totalitarian British regime (no, not you, Lizz Truss). One of the central themes that Alan Moore explores is how ideas can outlive their originators. “Behind this mask, there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask, there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.” This provides a robust framework for reimagining the future of crypto—it can endure independently of any one figure.
This isn’t just theoretical. Consider how open-source development and decentralized governance have created resilient systems that don’t rely on charismatic leaders. Take Ethereum, for example. Vitalik is beloved for his contributions, but his word is not gospel. Ethereum has evolved beyond its original vision, driven by communities rather than one individual. Of course, the community listens when Vitalik speaks, but they don’t blindly follow. Ethereum is notorious for debating and testing ideas. These ideas are based on merit, not source. Nevertheless, Ethereum isn’t perfect with its podcaster cabal and unfriendly sentiments towards select communities. However, boiled down to its true essence, at its purest form, it is a decentralized system based on ideas.
V for Vendetta also cautions us on the corrupting power of ideas. Ideas can create their own perspective and context. For example, *spoiler alert* Evey’s torture. When the viewer believes that Creedy (i.e., the head of the secret police) is torturing Evey (i.e., an ally of V), her imprisonment is seen as violent and cruel. However, when it’s revealed that it was V all along, it is seen as a harsh but necessary tool to prepare her to rebel against the cruel world they inhabit. The danger here is that the action and morality thereof didn’t change, only our perspective. Even when we compare High Chancellor Sutler (i.e., the leader of Britain’s fascist, totalitarian regime) and V, we see two men so rooted in their beliefs that any collateral damage is a reasonable sacrifice. They are greater than a man; they embody an idea, whether that be order and security in a destructive world or freedom from tyranny.
When an idea becomes the center of attention, so burned into our retinas that we only see the end goal, we justify the means. Ideas have incredible power, spurring us to action; they always beget action. A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto didn’t just articulate a set of principles—it inspired a generation of builders to create tools for privacy and freedom. Satoshi’s whitepaper wasn’t merely theoretical—it provided a blueprint for people to rally around, implement, and improve upon its initial vision.
The challenge of crypto is not a shortage of ideas—it’s finding ways to nurture these ideas without falling back into the trap of personality cults. We need to start reimagining leadership itself. Rather than looking for the next messiah, we need fluid structures that embrace crypto’s foundational principles. The future of crypto isn’t a lack of leaders but an abundance thereof.
I Work For You, And Me; We’re All Leaders in Perfect Harmony
Decentralization doesn’t mean an absence of leaders, but an abundance of them.
Often, we think of decentralization as fragmentation—tasks and decision-making are scattered, disconnected across peoples, places, and blockchains. However, real decentralization involves a cohesive framework where autonomy and collaboration intersect harmoniously. When done correctly, it can actually reduce the drivers of fragmentation and lead to quicker decisions.
The corporate world is starting to understand this. Boomers are shifting from calcified operational structures to more agile, technology-driven models (just one more sprint bro, I promise it’s worth it). For example, e& is a global technology and investment group that operates across 32 countries, with 5 distinct verticals and numerous subsidiaries. Traditional hierarchical management would collapse under the weight of coordinating across multiple countries, cultures, and time zones. Instead, their embrace of digitalized, decentralized decision-making and operations has enabled them to grow. Each vertical maintains autonomy while contributing to the larger whole—a microcosm of how decentralized leadership works at scale.
This shift extends beyond corporate structures to how we think about work itself. People are turning to decentralized hiring models to build more growth-oriented tech companies. This isn’t some fractional hiring baloney where the upper management works part-time—it’s a fundamental reimagining of how teams collaborate. It’s a model aiming to flatten hierarchies and create a deeper sense of interdependence, rather than authority, between leaders and teams. Over the next five years, 52% of the US adult workforce will either be working or have previously worked as an independent contractor. Also, 63% of executives say they would become an independent contractor if given the chance. Get with the times, old man. We’re entering a novel paradigm of leadership—one that is flexible, non-geo-centric, remote-first, relinquishes control, and brings creative ideas to the forefront. Decentralization begets a culture of decision-making. Why wait ten business days (if you’re lucky) for your manager’s manager’s manager to give their feedback on a decision when the decision could’ve been made already?
However, decentralization is not the death of centralization. We can’t eliminate all forms of central coordination and expect to succeed. We still need alignment—clear guidance, overarching strategy, and platforms for collaboration. This is why decentralization is framed as an abundance of leaders. We need a plurality of leaders championing the ideals of crypto that we’ve all come to love, each with their own specializations and contributing to the greater whole. The key is finding the right balance without giving too much power to one person, irrespective of how cool they are on Twitter.
This balance is best achieved when projects grow organically by the people, for the people. Uniswap started as a simple automated market maker but has become a community-driven protocol through grassroots participation. On Solana, we arguably have the purest form of decentralized leadership with MetaDAO—a collective of intellectuals and free-thinkers aiming to reform coordination while governed by markets. We can also look to MonkeDAO and its inclusive, empowering approach to governance, which has become the de facto standard for DAOs on Solana. They have a rigorous discussion, review, formal vote process, and a rotating leadership team, so no one person can strong-arm decisions. MonkeDAO also has a global network of ambassadors spanning North America, Europe, and Asia. Instead of a single figurehead leading the community, you have an idea of what it means to be a monke. And ideas are bulletproof.
We no longer need to blindly rely on a titular, god-like figure to lead us to greatness. We have enduring crypto projects led by countless individuals who draw their strength from a shared vision. These movements, that is, these grassroots movements, create decentralized systems that can outlast any individual contributor. And no, this isn’t some pinko-commie, kumbaya marketing slop. It is the actualized, libertarian dream of the sovereign individual championed by crypto. I work for you, and me; we’re all leaders in perfect harmony.
From Grass, We Emerge
The strength of grassroots movements lies in their authentic, bottom-up approach. These communities derive their power from collective action and shared purpose. Leadership emerges organically through contribution rather than appointment, creating naturally decentralized systems resistant to personality cults. Superteam is a fitting example.
Superteam is a community. It is a vision of the future, where Solana is led by talented, like-minded individuals worldwide. It is a cooperative of creators, developers, investors, and contributors who share a common goal: making it easy for people to contribute and “get out of the way.” While it acknowledges that every great company or project had the stewardship of a good leader, it aims to create more leaders who can ship value to the world, using community resources as a launch pad to spring their ideas to life. Leadership is fluid and ephemeral. Power flows to those who create value, and the creative autonomy of their projects is paramount. And if any disagreements arise, fork Superteam and start something new.
Superteam is a textbook grassroots movement. It uses self-organization to encourage community members to contribute and take responsibility for their community. Its fluid, rather than calcified, view of leadership is genuine, not some poor attempt at a DAO astroturfing its way to the limelight. Power is derived from the people, the people who show up to events, participate in hackathons, co-work, and have fun building alongside their fellow cryptonians.
This stands in stark contrast to the cult of personality mentality that has dominated crypto. While tech bros carefully craft their personas through calculated social media presence and performative displays of Chad-dom, communities like Superteam derive legitimacy from genuine community engagement and measurable impact. Innovation doesn’t always require a charismatic leader to succeed. Sure, they help. Helius wouldn’t have the impact it does without Mert. But Mert wouldn’t have the impact he has without the studded A-team lineup of intellectuals working at Helius. It’s a two-way street. Grassroots movements remind us that the most resilient projects arise from this delicate balance between individual initiative and collective wisdom. Strong leadership can coexist with distributed expertise. While having a visible leader helps articulate the vision and rally resources, the real magic happens when this leadership creates space for others to shine.
These types of movements naturalize balance. They foster an environment where contribution matters more than clout and create opportunities for multiple leaders to emerge organically. This results in a more robust ecosystem under the combined strength of many. Think of it as a garden rather than a monument. We don’t need looming monoliths that command attention. We need a complex, beautiful interplay of various elements—a carefully balanced ecosystem with sunflowers, tender herbs, water lilies, trees, tulips, and vines. Different plants will bloom in different seasons. Winter will come and go, but we will remain dynamic, responsive, and resilient. Crypto needs more gardeners and fewer monument builders—people who understand that nurturing an ecosystem matters far more than erecting any one edifice to an individual’s greatness. Yes, recognition is important, but not to the point of intense cults of personality.
This shift towards stewardship isn’t just philosophical but practical. No one person alone can save us. The challenges facing crypto are too immense for any single visionary, regardless of their Chad-dom or undeniable aura. We need the combined insights of developers, economists, philosophers, users, investors, and community builders working in concert. Grassroots movements provide the fertile soil for us to take root and flourish.
“[A]nyone who lacks the capacity to share in community, or has not the need because of his [own] self-sufficiency, is no part of the city and as a result is either a beast or a god” — Aristotle, Politics, 1253a29 (this guy was spitting)
The Path Forward
This isn’t a call to eliminate leadership—it’s about reimagining it. As we’ve seen with Superteam, and with the backing of the myriad of other cultural examples dissected throughout this article, the future should embrace fluidity and have a multi-polar approach. This is a powerful alternative to the traditional archetypes that haunt the specters of progress to the modern-day tech bro and their accompanying cults of personality. By nurturing these organic, community-driven approaches, rather than putting blind faith in one person to solve all of life’s problems, we can build something more sustainable than any charismatic leader could achieve alone.
At the end of the day, it’s all about this intrinsic human desire for belonging or, perhaps, being a bit better than we were yesterday. We believe, for better or for worse, that if we follow those with success, some form of authority, or a sense of power, we set ourselves on the right path. We need something to help make sense of our place in this world. As traditional guideposts like religion became less prominent in society, we looked elsewhere for direction and meaning. This is why we have Swifties, TMZ, and your favorite late-night talk show host shaping popular discourse. In tech, it manifests in the Elon fanboys, diehard Xbox users, and the countless other tribal platform warriors. Belonging is really important. And, in crypto, we amplify these needs and wants to unprecedented levels without any moral guidance. We create fervent cults around those who claim to “know” how to navigate this wild frontier—a frontier standing at the forefront of progress—and, ultimately, how to navigate the world.
The future of crypto doesn’t need more messiahs or carefully curated online personas. Do you really want another FTX? We need more gardeners—people willing to plant the seeds, tend to the ecosystem, and let a thousand flowers bloom. Stop and smell the flowers. Touch grass, anon. True innovation can flourish without the suffocating weight of hero worship. And, perhaps the most revolutionary idea of all: maybe, just maybe, if we’re able to move past all of the tech bro mythology, we might finally be able to realize crypto’s original promise of genuine decentralization—not just in our technology, but our leadership too.
I believe in a crypto-optimist future—one governed by many for the benefit of all. I believe in the ownership economy, the intrinsic power of individual sovereignty, and the strength of numbers. I believe in gardening—working in the open, sharing code, being transparent, and holding people accountable. My Twitter followers are my friends in this vibrant new adventure into the future of human coordination, not exit liquidity. Question all forms of authority and see through the veil of snake oil salesmen. Everyone has the power to lead. True progress is not confined to one individual but flows through the collective wisdom of the garden. We are all builders, leaders, and stewards of this ecosystem. What we plant today will grow into the forest of tomorrow. And in that forest, I don’t want to see any stupid monuments. I want to smell the flowers. And I hope you do too, anon.