A “writer coin” imagines each journalist as their own miniature economy. Instead of subscribing to The New York Times or supporting an entire platform like Substack, readers would invest in the writer themselves. The more popular a writer becomes, the more their coin is worth; the value rises as readership grows, producing financial incentives for quality content and sustained engagement. It is essentially equity in a person instead of a company. In theory, this encourages a healthier relationship between writer and reader: supporters feel like stakeholders rather than passive consumers, and writers get access to upfront capital that allows them to pursue investigations, long-term research, or niche interests.

But as appealing as this sounds, writer coins also reflect the market logic that has damaged journalism in the first place. Audiences do not necessarily reward what is most important; they reward what is most engaging, most entertaining, or most aligned with their existing worldviews. A reporter trying to investigate corruption in municipal zoning laws will almost always lose, financially, to someone writing spicy opinion takes or culture-war commentary. We already know this from social media: virality is a terrible compass for civic value. Writer coins, if left to pure market dynamics, could accelerate that trend rather than reverse it.