Crypto's Deviance Adam Mastroianni's decline of deviance thesis argues society has become increasingly risk-averse and homogeneous - teens drink less, adults commit fewer crimes, culture stagnates, and architecture converges on minimalist sameness. His explanation: life has become so safe and valuable that we've adopted "slow life strategies," avoiding anything that might disrupt our comfortable existence. The cryptocurrency space perfectly illustrates this pattern's divergence. Bitcoin and Ethereum represent two fundamentally different responses to the decline of deviance. Bitcoin is embracing the decline. What started as cypherpunk rebellion has crystallized into orthodoxy. The community has developed rigid narratives around "digital gold", "21 million", and "hodling". The culture demands conformity - if you question the laser eyes consensus, you're dismissed as not understanding Bitcoin. It's creating exactly the kind of monoculture Mastroianni describes: everyone thinking the same thoughts, using the same language, following the same playbook. Bitcoin has become institutionalized deviance that's no longer actually deviant. Ethereum, meanwhile, exemplifies the wild deviance Mastroianni says we're losing. DeFi Summer was pure chaos - a completely unregulated market where anyone could launch anything. Sure, most projects were garbage or outright scams. But that's the point. Real deviance means tolerating the bad weird along with the good weird. You had teenagers creating protocols moving billions of dollars. Anonymous developers shipping code that banks couldn't imagine. Constant experimentation with new mechanisms, new models, new possibilities. The Ethereum ecosystem remains genuinely strange. Every few months there's a completely new category of thing that didn't exist before - DeFi, NFTs, DAOs, restaking, RWA tokenization, AI agents, prediction markets. The community actively debates fundamental changes. Hard forks happen. People take real risks. This connects to Mastroianni's insight about why deviance has declined: we have too much to lose. Bitcoin's institutional adoption has given it something precious to protect, so it's become conservative. Ethereum's culture, for better or worse, maintains the hacker ethos of "move fast and break things" - which is only possible if you're willing to risk breaking everything you've built. The question is whether crypto can sustain genuine deviance or whether, like everything else Mastroianni documents, it will inevitably converge on safe, boring consensus. Bitcoin suggests the latter. Ethereum suggests it's still possible to keep the weird alive - if you're willing to accept the chaos that comes with it.

Replies (4)

First -- fascinating essay, thanks for sharing. Second -- top level point about Ethereum vs Bitcoin, I think part of the issue is, because Ethereum is designed as a Turing-complete protocol, you CAN take far more risks. Bitcoin at the protocol level is by design meant to be somewhat "conservative" -- a limited scripting language for things like multisig, etc, but nothing more complicated than that. But, as I suspect you're arguing on a cultural level BItcoin has become less "deviant" -- I can see this, as we've discussed in the past, Bitcoin's current "center-Right" cultural and political alignment means that it tends to elevate a sort of pro-American, pro-natalist narrative.... But Bitcoin's still "dangerous." Keone Rodriguez was just jailed for writing Bitcoin code.
Ad Bitcoin design - When you want to do something complex (like a decentralized financial system), it makes sense to start with a limited minimal design and then iterate to what you want to achieve. Bitcoin could have become turning-complete, or a turing-complete L2 could have emerged instead of Lightning. In my opinion, the bitcoin community gave up on this path too early and radically, and that opened the way for Ethereum. But yeah, you are of course right, the fact that anyone can deploy any smart contract (or create a new market) is the basis of the deviance, these things are very difficult on Bitcoin. btw, big things can be done at the protocol level too, the switch from PoW to PoS was one of the most fascinating things I have experienced in crypto :)
On the PoS switch -- yes, that kind of fundamental change terrifies Bitcoiners. I'm OK with that because I like the idea of a world where BTC and ETH coexist, and these have different communities with different values. So is ETH completely PoS now?
Well, every software needs a fundamental change from time to time to stay relevant or functional. Yes, it's been almost 3.5 years since the transition to PoS (the merge) and no major problems, I think it's proving to be a good alternative to bitcoin mining, which has its own problems. The idea of unified "community values" breaks down when communities reach the scale of Bitcoin or Ethereum. Both have people with very different worldviews and opinions on how the network should develop. Being a btc or eth (maximalist) doesn't really say much about your values nowadays.