Martyr to Morals.

Would you sacrifice your morals or reputation for a few dollars? How about several million dollars. What if you were given enough dollars to make sure your next generations will never think about money.

It's a question that reads like hyperbole, but I am being entirely serious.

Founders in crypto are faced with this question every day. In no veiled manner, every person that has ever built anything in this space can quickly realize a few million dollars if morals and ethics are ignored.

Uh, Ma'am? Your Man Is Drunk.

In 2025 we have already seen several people claim the spotlight for themselves. Momentum is flowing in the space. Wimps are saying it is over while institutions adopt at national levels and hyper-financialized products generate millions in revenue a day. Welcome to crypto, I hope you are enjoying your time.

With these times have come a set of people I cannot feel anything but objective respect for. Let me explain.

The people that are impressing me the most this cycle are not those with the highest moral or social standards. It is the out-performers. The ones willing to bite the bullet for their immediate short term return.

This week we saw Jesse, and Base by proxy, involved in a social controversy about the implications of creating financialized markets around zero-value having assets. A marketing campaign of "Hey post your content onchain" rocked a vast majority of the "ethereum-aligned" crowd on crypto twitter to no ones surprise.

Countless people recommended stopping this campaign and re-adjusting the delivery once they have a better grasp on the market. Suddenly everyone become John Travolta with their hands out looking around the room in absolute confusion. There was quite a bit of nuance, but the sentiment largely boils down to: "When has short term growth [...] had a terrible long term outcome? Oh yeah, every single time"

It's an obvious and easy take to have. If you didn't stop to think about that for a second I would be surprised.

The question that is far more revealing is far more simple, though. What is the intent behind these actions?

Stop and think about it for a second. What goal justifies these actions? Accumulate as much activity as possible from retail blockchain users.

Relating without Understanding

For the last 24 months we have all seen crypto founders crash out. Not even about anything specific. First it was regulation, then it was the cost of blockchains, then it was how slow they are, then it was that funding couldn't be acquired for apps, then it was chain fragmentation is huge, and then the price went down... are you starting to see where I'm going? No one has found a sustainable way to get and keep users and they are blaming everything out of their control.

But they're not wrong. It is incredibly easy to look around and find yourself very unhappy with the state of things. Founders hit the conferences like they're told to. They make the partnerships they know they should. They get integrated into the new cool apps hoping with every fiber of their body that things go as they plan. Everyone is kind of faking it, but at the same time many kill themselves to stand out from the crowd and make sure they have the best chance of winning.

Everyone can relate to the feeling of pouring your all into something and wanting it to succeed. You do not want to waste your time. You want things to work. So, you do what you can to make that happen.

Many have been beaten down, though. Many took the moral high-road and have nothing to show for it except a shirt with a few stains on it because they can't afford the lifestyle they feel like they've worked for. Many simply get stun-locked by a skill issue that prevents them from realizing dreams.

Jesse hasn't taken that path, though. Instead, it's been an unabashed push to a future he is going to try and make happen.

Regardless of how you feel about the thesis of content coins or what Jesse/Base are doing, a certain amount of respect is required. In todays world it is not easy or "safe" to take a contrarian bet so loudly as a publicly traded company. Most startups don't operate with this level of directed conviction.

You do not need to understand why they are doing what they are doing to respect the willingness and hunger to do so.

It has been a really long time since I've seen someone take a bet in this way. It's admirable in more ways than one. Taking risks when you're in the lead is not something someone complacent or willing to lose, does. It's a winners mentality.

My Compass Does Not Work

While I've argued for the value of bold action and risk-taking, it's worth acknowledging that moral compromises don't always end well.

The case you are most likely to know about is Goldman Sachs' Abacus CDO controversy from 2010. The investment bank created and sold the Abacus 2007-AC1 synthetic CDO that was specifically designed to fail, allowing hedge fund managers to bet against the housing market. While technically meeting disclosure requirements, Goldman sold this investment to clients without fully disclosing that it was designed by someone betting on its failure. Morally reprehensible.

The intent was to make a profit by hurting others. Objectively bad, right?

And of course there were consequences following the moral compromise. A swift $550 million settlement with the SEC and an ever-lasting reputational damage.

The idea here isn't that moral compromises always backfire, but rather that deception ultimately undermines long-term value. The distinction matters: taking contrarian risks with transparency differs fundamentally from misleading stakeholders about what you're doing.

Martyr or Winner

The question we started with remains: Would you sacrifice your morals for money? The answer isn't binary and we secretly both know your morals are far more flexible that you'd quickly admit.

So, would you rather be a martyr for your success or failure? You don't get to say both. Choose one, because you will be making a decision unless you take up charity work or can lie to yourself exceptionally well.

In the end, reputation is a currency that can be spent and regained. Those unwilling to make difficult choices often find themselves with pristine reputations but empty wallets and apps with zero users. The martyrs who stood on moral high ground now watch from the sidelines as boldness captures market share. Meanwhile the remaining 99% of people, either forgot the controversy 36 hours later when the next one comes or never even heard about it.

Base's approach demonstrates what happens when you prioritize execution over perpetual consensus-building. While the "ethereum-aligned" crowd debates the philosophical implications, Base is capturing users. This isn't about being careless with reputation - it's about knowing when it makes sense to take a risk and spend some of it to do something different.

Crypto has never rewarded the timid or the overly cautious. The market demands conviction, not consensus. In crypto, as in life, the critical path to success is rarely the most comfortable one. Sometimes the decision that damages reputation today creates the foundation for something far more valuable tomorrow.

Good luck anon. The Overton window has shifted once again and I hope you paid attention.