In the previous essays we introduced the concept of onchain hypercultures:

https://mirror.xyz/lght.eth/pTG74wlS43LGBzP7ZYCBTGEcWJ9uZdC3lUa2JJUXtQA

and examined their characteristics in the market.

https://mirror.xyz/lght.eth/Av_4Vx1U9jDYgDzdrfWQD3FKuXUbMpQ9h5n-KlFz3KQ

Now, we’ll speculate on plausible adoption funnels for global integration - the only way onchain hypercultures will endure.

There are about 300k daily active users on Ethereum Mainnet (data from Token Terminal). In terms of culture, this number is far too small. Context needs time to ferment. Builders need time to build.

In a world of quarterly earnings, SEC malpractice, hyperinflation, bank-runs, and increasingly disparaging socio-economic mobility… the idea of onchain cultural epicenters is not only foreign, but extraordinarily novel.

This is a multi-layered ordeal. One that can only thrive with the realization of two other models: hyperstructures and hypercommons.

Thanks to @jacob we have a framework for thinking about decentralized protocols (hyperstructures). In this series we hope to provide a framework for thinking about decentralized cultures (hypercultures). And thanks to @gami we have a framework for thinking about decentralized public goods (hypercommons).

If we can agree that the diverse range of individual incentives, in crypto, summate a scenario that approximates global adoption, then we must broaden our ideas on inclusive design.

Structures, cultures, and public goods already exist in the offchain world. The differences onchain are the tech stack, global coordination, and equity distribution.

With these differences in mind, it requires us to think more holistically about the manifestation of hypercultures. Some will come for capital. Some will come for culture. Some will come for attention. And some will come for public goods.

Hypercultures exist in the middle of hyperstructures and hypercommons. The incentives for scaling and maintaining a culture come about from either direction.

At the structure level, we tend to see capital as the driving incentive for what can turn into cultural incentives. On the other end, what drives the public good level tends to be social-common incentives. Either incentive-path is acceptable, and necessary, for onchain hypercultures.

Let’s look at these three layers through an adjusted interpretation of the Bell Curve.

The Pareto Principle is often stated in the context of power laws.

20% of Italy owned 80% of its land

Instead of looking at the edge cases as the power centers, we are looking at the combination of their incentives to gain insight on probable adoption funnels.

Within hyperstructures we can look at the more nuanced and broad incentives to estimate what likely brings the majority of market capital, participants, and protocols to this layer of the space.

**A better company model **is a close summation of censorship resistant platforms and a fairer organization.

Through this line of thinking we can see that the most plausible adoption funnels, for those interested in hyperstructures, would be those adhering to this incentive.

When looking at hypercultures we can surmise a better creator economy being the leading adoption funnel for market capital, participants, and culture.

If you examine creators like Mr. Beast and his Feastables chocolate brand, you begin to see a world where this can manifest onchain.

Lastly, when using the same prediction model for hypercommons, we can predict that the most potent adoption funnels will lead with a better planet as their incentive.

When considering the three layers, their incentive-leads, and the positioning of onchain hypercultures in the middle, we see how context fermentation is the ‘prep-work’ for global integration.

For an OH like Nouns we see how they are buttressed by hyperstructure and hypercommon funnels. These two layers are essentially the hyperculture as well, with the removal of them simultaneously being the removal of what works.

When looking at Opepen and Zora we can also see silhouettes of their hypercommon layers (already examining their structures in Essay 2).

For Zora:

• open source code

For Opepen:

• 100 meals charity

It’s too early to make definitives about the ratio by which the additional layers must manifest, if at all, but again we see a patterns shared between the three.

We are deep in on a speculative line of thinking here. Yet, what seems concrete is that onchain hypercultures need adoption funnels unrelated to traditional ‘cultural norms’.

Whether that includes both hyperstructures and hypercommons is unknown. But it seems unlikely that one could manifest adoption of their hyperculture with neither.

In the previous essays we introduced the concept of onchain hypercultures:

https://mirror.xyz/lght.eth/pTG74wlS43LGBzP7ZYCBTGEcWJ9uZdC3lUa2JJUXtQA

and examined their characteristics in the market.

https://mirror.xyz/lght.eth/Av_4Vx1U9jDYgDzdrfWQD3FKuXUbMpQ9h5n-KlFz3KQ

Now, we’ll speculate on plausible adoption funnels for global integration - the only way onchain hypercultures will endure.

There are about 300k daily active users on Ethereum Mainnet (data from Token Terminal). In terms of culture, this number is far too small. Context needs time to ferment. Builders need time to build.

In a world of quarterly earnings, SEC malpractice, hyperinflation, bank-runs, and increasingly disparaging socio-economic mobility… the idea of onchain cultural epicenters is not only foreign, but extraordinarily novel.

This is a multi-layered ordeal. One that can only thrive with the realization of two other models: hyperstructures and hypercommons.

Thanks to @jacob we have a framework for thinking about decentralized protocols (hyperstructures). In this series we hope to provide a framework for thinking about decentralized cultures (hypercultures). And thanks to @gami we have a framework for thinking about decentralized public goods (hypercommons).

If we can agree that the diverse range of individual incentives, in crypto, summate a scenario that approximates global adoption, then we must broaden our ideas on inclusive design.

Structures, cultures, and public goods already exist in the offchain world. The differences onchain are the tech stack, global coordination, and equity distribution.

With these differences in mind, it requires us to think more holistically about the manifestation of hypercultures. Some will come for capital. Some will come for culture. Some will come for attention. And some will come for public goods.

Hypercultures exist in the middle of hyperstructures and hypercommons. The incentives for scaling and maintaining a culture come about from either direction.

At the structure level, we tend to see capital as the driving incentive for what can turn into cultural incentives. On the other end, what drives the public good level tends to be social-common incentives. Either incentive-path is acceptable, and necessary, for onchain hypercultures.

Let’s look at these three layers through an adjusted interpretation of the Bell Curve.

The Pareto Principle is often stated in the context of power laws.

20% of Italy owned 80% of its land

Instead of looking at the edge cases as the power centers, we are looking at the combination of their incentives to gain insight on probable adoption funnels.

Within hyperstructures we can look at the more nuanced and broad incentives to estimate what likely brings the majority of market capital, participants, and protocols to this layer of the space.

**A better company model **is a close summation of censorship resistant platforms and a fairer organization.

Through this line of thinking we can see that the most plausible adoption funnels, for those interested in hyperstructures, would be those adhering to this incentive.

When looking at hypercultures we can surmise a better creator economy being the leading adoption funnel for market capital, participants, and culture.

If you examine creators like Mr. Beast and his Feastables chocolate brand, you begin to see a world where this can manifest onchain.

Lastly, when using the same prediction model for hypercommons, we can predict that the most potent adoption funnels will lead with a better planet as their incentive.

When considering the three layers, their incentive-leads, and the positioning of onchain hypercultures in the middle, we see how context fermentation is the ‘prep-work’ for global integration.

For an OH like Nouns we see how they are buttressed by hyperstructure and hypercommon funnels. These two layers are essentially the hyperculture as well, with the removal of them simultaneously being the removal of what works.

When looking at Opepen and Zora we can also see silhouettes of their hypercommon layers (already examining their structures in Essay 2).

For Zora:

• open source code

For Opepen:

• 100 meals charity

It’s too early to make definitives about the ratio by which the additional layers must manifest, if at all, but again we see a patterns shared between the three.

We are deep in on a speculative line of thinking here. Yet, what seems concrete is that onchain hypercultures need adoption funnels unrelated to traditional ‘cultural norms’.

Whether that includes both hyperstructures and hypercommons is unknown. But it seems unlikely that one could manifest adoption of their hyperculture with neither.