Hype as Infrastructure [Guest]
What Florence, Tesla, and OpenAI Teach Us About Winning in Fragmented Systems
It takes time to create work that’s clear, independent, and genuinely useful. If you’ve found value in this newsletter, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It helps me dive deeper into research, reach more people, stay free from ads/hidden agendas, and supports my crippling chocolate milk addiction. We run on a “pay what you can” model—so if you believe in the mission, there’s likely a plan that fits (over here).
Every subscription helps me stay independent, avoid clickbait, and focus on depth over noise, and I deeply appreciate everyone who chooses to support our cult.
PS – Supporting this work doesn’t have to come out of your pocket. If you read this as part of your professional development, you can use this email template to request reimbursement for your subscription.
Every month, the Chocolate Milk Cult reaches over a million Builders, Investors, Policy Makers, Leaders, and more. If you’d like to meet other members of our community, please fill out this contact form here (I will never sell your data nor will I make intros w/o your explicit permission)- https://forms.gle/Pi1pGLuS1FmzXoLr6
To do so, he draws from Renaissance diplomacy, modern game theory, and the economics of emerging tech to make a simple but unsettling point: in high-uncertainty environments, hype isn't noise. It’s infrastructure.
Why this matters
Most people see hype as short-term attention-seeking. This piece shows how, in fragmented systems without centralized authority, hype functions as a kind of soft power: solving cold-start problems, aligning incentives, and triggering massive coordination cascades.
If you’ve ever wondered:
Why do some AI companies attract capital, talent, and regulators while others stall?
What made Tesla’s charger standard succeed where decades of federal policy failed?
How did Florence, a militarily weak city, avoid conquest in a world defined by conquest?
As you read, ask yourself:
Are you building substance while ignoring the perception layer that determines which substance scales?
Are you underestimating the strategic function of delusion in environments with incomplete information?
If your product, startup, or vision isn't becoming a focal point for others to align around—why should it survive?
What happens to you in a world where hype is not optional, but the baseline cost of relevance?
About the author
This post is adapted from Reshuffle, an upcoming book on power, strategy, and progress in a fragmented world. If you found this sharp, you'll want to pre-order the book here (available for 70% off until release day).
Additionally, would strongly recommend that you subscribe to the Sangeet’s newsletter—
for a regular dose of historically backed, strategic insights on how to navigate and thrive a world that’s constantly being upturned by technology.On with the piece.
A game theory guide to AI, Altman, and the strategic value of hype
In medieval warfare, survival was determined by how well you could keep enemies out. Castles were surrounded by moats, designed to slow down invaders.
The moat was the barrier that gave you time and leverage. You won by making conquest harder than it was worth.
Warren Buffett made the metaphor famous in investing circles. The best businesses, he said, have economic moats, which come in many forms - network effects, learning effects, regulatory capture, resource control, and so on. But they all serve the same purpose as the old moats: to protect against competition. If you have a moat, you can defend your market position and compound returns over time.
Today, every ambitious company chases a moat. It’s strategy 101.
Build something others can’t copy, make yourself indispensable, lock others out.
But what if we’re heading into a world without moats. We’ve been on this path for some time, arguably, and many non-tech businesses figured their traditional moats no longer mattered. Media companies lost their distribution advantages with the internet, banks lost some of their customer capture with the rise of open banking. Yet, the tech companies seemed to have it figured with network effects.
But what if moats aren’t as effective anymore?
Could a medieval city have ever survived without moats?
Florence - the strategic outlier in a world of moats
Renaissance-era Florence had none of the usual levers of self-defense.
At the crossroads of Europe’s commercial routes, yet dwarfed by the territorial empires that surrounded it, Florence was wealthy but militarily vulnerable and politically isolated. Florence had neither the weapons to fight nor the moats to defend.
Yet, Florence was never attacked.
It never needed a moat in a world where others were busy digging moats
Florence invested in art, philosophy, and diplomacy to position itself as a civilizational asset too valuable to destroy.
When foreign ambassadors arrived, expecting a decadent merchant town, they were met with ancient Roman bronzes, Greek scholars teaching children Plato, courtyards filled with art.
Florence was engaging in, what can best be called, strategic narrative construction.
It was casting itself as the heir to Rome, the custodian of reborn antiquity. To sack Florence, as armies routinely did to Pisa or Milan, would be sacrilege, not just warfare. Everyone wanted a piece of it, yet no single actor wanted to bear the reputational cost of invasion. And so, while others bought hours and days of defence using moats, Florence bought generational defence through reframing.
Florence didn’t dig moats, it reframed the rules of competition. In a fragmented system with no central authority and high costs of miscalculation, the city made itself a focal point around which otherwise uncoordinated actors could align.
Hype, not moats
Florence realized the power of hype, manufacturing the illusion that conquering Florence was not just dangerous but uncivilized.
It elevated itself from a city into a symbol. A conquest of Florence would go down as an act of barbarism. On Florence’s part, this was a conscious, well-financed strategy.
The Medici knew that Florence was rich and vulnerable. They weaponised art sponsorship and commissioning as a tool to shape perception and generate buzz, and to pre-empt conflict by controlling the narrative.
Ambassadors would go on Altman-style speaking tours telling others how they could never catch up and instead should be part of the Florence sphere of influence. Kings across Europe sent their children to be educated there. Diplomats wrote praise about its sculpture and its aura of impossible civility.
Hype is a mechanism for strategic misdirection. Hype helped create the sense that Florence was at the center of a cultural future already in motion. The trick worked because the story was not entirely invented, but was anchored in real outputs - art, ideas, architecture - or in today’s world, large language models that speak and think better than most humans would. The outputs of Florence were carefully curated to tell a bigger story.
Moats could keep invaders at bay for a few days - they could buy you some time. But hype could completely change the payoff associated with invasion, eliminating invaders entirely.
The stag hunt
What Florence realized, long before the word hype entered business speak, is that in fragile systems, perception can be stronger than position.
Hype, when used skilfully, becomes a coordination device. It aligns incentives across actors.
Coordination helps you aim for - and achieve - larger goals that are individually not achievable. This is best illustrated through the classic Stag Hunt game.
Let’s say you’re out hunting in a clearing with a friend, both eyeing the same stag in the distance. If you go after it together, you eat for a week. But if your friend flakes and goes for rabbits, you’re left with nothing. You’ll be stuck hunting a rabbit as well.
Big, hairy, ambitious outcomes are achieved only when we believe others will show up too. That’s where narrative comes in. It turns broken coordination into a belief that everyone can rally around. In venture investing, in AI, in climate action, there’s no point ending up with a rabbit each. You have to go after the stag!
Progress is a coordination game
When you’re dealing with emerging technologies, whether AI or climate tech, the primary constraint is not invention. It is coordination.
These systems rely on the alignment of multiple, interdependent actors across research, capital, regulation, infrastructure, and public trust. Without synchronized participation, the most promising technologies fail to reach scale.
Historically, large-scale coordination problems were solved through institutional mechanisms. Governments offered standards and funding, and created regulatory certainty. This model worked under relatively stable conditions, with clear strategic goals.
Today’s systems operate in structural uncertainty. Governments are often under-resourced relative to private firms. Timelines and payoffs are unclear. Yet, the need for coordinated action has only grown.
Take the example of the case of electric vehicles in the United States. Since the late 2000s, federal and state actors have attempted to build the foundation for EV adoption through the Combined Charging System (CCS) standard. Billions of dollars were allocated to fund charging infrastructure aligned with CCS. Automakers committed to building compatible vehicles. Yet the infrastructure failed.
During the same period, Tesla vertically integrated its own charging infrastructure, creating a dense, reliable, and user-friendly Supercharger network. Alongside that, Tesla created hype by framing itself not just as a car company, but as the vanguard of a global energy revolution. And, of course, the cars would look good too. Tesla’s narrative made electrification feel like a cultural movement.
By 2023, nearly every major automaker, including Ford, GM, and others, announced plans to abandon CCS and adopt Tesla’s North American Charging Standard (NACS). The institutional coordination mechanisms had failed to achieve the alignment needed to scale the market. The narrative and infrastructure created by Tesla succeeded in doing so.
Tesla’s story, even if not a story of hype, illustrates the failure of traditional institutional mechanisms like the CCS to solve the coordination problems that truly matter.
The economics of hype
How exactly does hype work - we’ve got evidence, particularly from the past decade.
1. Hype as a coordination mechanism
In early-stage or high-uncertainty industries, value emerges when complementary actors move together.
Hype helps overcome cold-start problems and unlocks value that wouldn’t otherwise emerge.
In the absence of effective institutional mechanisms, narrative hype acts as a functional substitute for formal coordination mechanisms.
It organizes attention. It aligns expectations. And it enables distributed actors to move simultaneously, even when the institutional structure remains incomplete. Just as Tesla’s charging story created a de facto standard that public systems failed to impose, narratives in other domains, including Sam Altman’s delusional predictions, serve as coordination devices in ecosystems otherwise defined by fragmentation.
2. Hype creates temporal arbitrage
Because hype generates attention faster than fundamentals improve, it creates a window of temporal arbitrage.
Narrative-led coordination is often financially intermediated. Belief is capitalized through valuations, tokens, or startup equity. These financial instruments double as vehicles for system alignment, but they also introduce volatility. When expectations shift, or narratives lose traction, losses get socialized, often through retail markets or through disillusionment among complementary actors who moved based on incomplete signals.
3. Hype redistributes risks and costs
Hype doesn’t just amplify upside. It socializes risk and privatizes reward.
In this environment, the cost of progress, especially R&D waste and early-stage infrastructure buildout, is increasingly externalized.
Governments once absorbed this as a function of industrial policy. But today, it is increasingly distributed across markets in the form of inflated expectations and FOMO.
Early movers use hype to attract complementary investments without bearing full responsibility if things don’t pan out. Later entrants often shoulder the costs of failure, through sunk investments or reputational fallout.
4. Hype serves as productive fiction with economic consequences
Hype paints a plausible vision of the future, even if it won’t fully materialize. This fiction helps solve coordination problems. But if the fiction breaks before the system locks in, it can collapse the whole effort.
In that sense, hype creates self-fulfilling and self-defeating loops, depending on whether the underlying system can catch up fast enough.
This, then, increases the risk of the anti-hype brigade discrediting the entire story, even parts of it that do work, and heightens the risk of systemic backlash if expectations collapse. This is the problem with Altman-style hype today. It creates the gravity as well as the indignation that spurs creative action but it also incubates an army of critics who end up discrediting momentum, even the parts that deliver results.
The architecture of progress
Progress is now often contingent on the ability to create believable futures, and with that, create coordination among actors in the absence of institutional support.
This gives hype a role previously reserved for regulation and subsidy. It is not merely a communication strategy; it is a coordination mechanism, especially in systems characterized by interdependence and incomplete information.
In the industrial model, hype was a marketing mechanism - to sell more through misdirection.
Today, hype is a coordination mechanism - to build the momentum required across a system of complements for the system to take off.
Understanding this shift is important.
In systems where outcomes depend on early-stage alignment across diverse actors, we are not only funding technologies, we are also funding the architecture that makes coordinated progress possible. Increasingly, that architecture is based not on institutional infrastructure but on narrative hype.
The mechanics of hype
The first thing hype does is create a focal point. Florence made itself the place to see what art was becoming. In a fragmented Italy, where armies changed sides weekly, that kind of clarity was magnetic.
But a focal point only matters if people feel urgency. Hype serves as an urgency engine. Florence made sure visiting dignitaries didn’t just see its treasures, they felt the consequences of attacking it. If you sack Florence, you destroy the custodians of the ancient greatness of the Roman Empire.
Hype offers a moral reframing. Florence’s commissioning of provocative, nude statuary weren’t positioned as the indulgences of a decadent city. They were tributes to humanism. Critics could be dismissed as backward or blind to beauty. Altman and his ilk do something similar, frequently speaking about curing cancer and other versions of ‘making the world a better place’ while stoking the US-China narrative as a moral issue.
Fourth, hype attracts the ecosystem. The Medici became magnets for displaced scholars and philosophers. The city became a platform with strong network effects.
As the story spreads, it reshapes the payoff landscape. Florence became safe because attacking it started to look foolish. The reputational cost was too high and the political risk involved discouraged such attacks. Hype, once widely accepted, becomes a strategic trap for late movers.
Finally, hype creates new standards. Once Florence had become the cultural north star of the Renaissance, other cities rebuilt their palaces to mimic Florentine aesthetics. Kings hired Florentine tutors for their heirs. Florence was the benchmark for royalty. Over time, the narrative became a standard.
Good Hype, Bad Hype - and Hype as a strategy
None of this is to make a case for hype. Hype creates imbalance and often socialises losses to those who can’t afford to hold it.
Yet, in fragmented, rapidly-evolving systems, hype is functional. It performs roles that more traditional and institutional tools - regulations, standards, government programs etc - can’t fill fast enough. It coordinates the uncoordinated.
It is important, then, that we don’t simply dismiss all hype, but look at how it’s used.
1. Hype as strategic coordination
As with Florence, hype can create the conditions for long-term value creation through solving coordination problems. It’s a tool to reduce uncertainty in high-ambiguity environments - a mechanism that accelerates ecosystem formation. The hype may run ahead of reality, but it still runs in the right direction.
2. Hype as temporal arbitrage
This is the opportunist’s play. Here, hype is used to drive up attention, extract value, and exit before the narrative collapses.
The problem is that many startups start out with the former and end up doing the latter. The temptation to hack attention - once you’ve figured how to do it - and exit while on top, is too high.
This form of hype makes future coordination harder by damaging trust.
It’s the reason hype has such a toxic reputation.
But hype is increasingly going to be the price we pay for progress. So distinguishing between the two is absolutely essential.
Moats are good, they create some defence. But Florence created the best defence - one that lasted centuries despite political turbulence in neighboring states - by reframing the entire game using narrative hype.
Hope may not be a strategy, but given the right conditions, hype certainly is one!
Pre-order the book
This post is based on ideas from my upcoming book Reshuffle.
Reshuffle is now available for pre-orders. All pre-orders leading up to the launch date are at 70% off.
Thank you for being here, and I hope you have a wonderful day.
Dev <3
I provide various consulting and advisory services. If you‘d like to explore how we can work together, reach out to me through any of my socials over here or reply to this email.
I put a lot of work into writing this newsletter. To do so, I rely on you for support. If a few more people choose to become paid subscribers, the Chocolate Milk Cult can continue to provide high-quality and accessible education and opportunities to anyone who needs it. If you think this mission is worth contributing to, please consider a premium subscription. You can do so for less than the cost of a Netflix Subscription (pay what you want here).
If you liked this article and wish to share it, please refer to the following guidelines.
That is it for this piece. I appreciate your time. As always, if you’re interested in working with me or checking out my other work, my links will be at the end of this email/post. And if you found value in this write-up, I would appreciate you sharing it with more people. It is word-of-mouth referrals like yours that help me grow. The best way to share testimonials is to share articles and tag me in your post so I can see/share it.
Reach out to me
Use the links below to check out my other content, learn more about tutoring, reach out to me about projects, or just to say hi.
Small Snippets about Tech, AI and Machine Learning over here
AI Newsletter- https://artificialintelligencemadesimple.substack.com/
My grandma’s favorite Tech Newsletter- https://codinginterviewsmadesimple.substack.com/
Check out my other articles on Medium. : https://rb.gy/zn1aiu
My YouTube: https://rb.gy/88iwdd
Reach out to me on LinkedIn. Let’s connect: https://rb.gy/m5ok2y
My Instagram: https://rb.gy/gmvuy9
My Twitter: https://twitter.com/Machine01776819
 | A guest post by
|
Hi Devanesh,
Great piece, although there are a couple of elements to your arguments that I find missing.
The first is that hype, while at it's best may indeed do many of the things you talk about, also tends to trigger people's BS meters. People have very sensitive BS meters and, once set off, are very difficult to recover from. This (often) completely dilutes any positive effect hype may have. You note that it may set off armies of critics and, I think, that a more insidious problem may be that it causes people to lose trust and *not* say anything, which is an almost impossible barrier to overcome.
The other, in terms of your Florence metaphor, is that what you don't talk about is the huge and far-reaching financial investments the Medici's made all across Europe. Yes, they may have promoted the idea that attacking Florence was uncivilized (there is little historical evidence for this, as far as I know), but they also made it risky to attack Florence due to the huge financial support they provided to their European neighbors.
While I agree overall that hype has its place in the overall marketing, GTM, promotional scheme, these are points that, imho, weaken your argument.
Florence was actually attacked several times. Other than that, nice post!