From what I observe, most of Web3 leans anti-war in principle, but that ethos stays submerged because the space is heavily reliant on centralized capital—much of it Silicon Valley-based—which tends to be pro-interventionist, NRX-adjacent, and larping as guardians of “Western Civilization.” That alignment trickles down.

Farcaster, for example, has major early backing from a16z, and one of its cofounders came out of Coinbase—the same Coinbase that just sponsored Trump’s military parade. That’s not a neutral backdrop; it’s a clear ideological signal. In that environment, openly anti-war stances carry reputational and financial risks. Most developers and founders stay quiet. The exceptions are usually theory-heavy adjacent communities—crypto-anarchists, regen weirdos, or degen enclaves—that raised neutral or ideologically unentangled capital and can afford to speak more freely.

It’s like you’re building a LinkedIn masked as social media optimizing for professional signaling and network effects that ultimately serve capital allocation. The social media layer provides the ideological cover—all the discourse about decentralization, censorship resistance, community ownership. But the underlying architecture is designed to optimize for the same outcomes as LinkedIn: sorting people into hierarchies based on their access to capital, their ability to perform the right signals, and their willingness to advance narratives that serve existing power structures.

The “social” part becomes a way to gamify compliance. Instead of explicitly asking people to conform to institutional expectations, you create a system where the highest status rewards naturally flow to those who advance institution-friendly narratives while maintaining the appearance of grassroots authenticity.

Antiques dealer, machine psychologist. http://www.musicinphasespace.com

LinkedIn is optimised to sell its crap spam services, though?