thematically it is intuitive that "information markets" created by verifiable scarcity can help us identify signal within an expanding sea of noise and slop.

a question would be the relationship between virality and signal. 

for example, the "ice cream so good" girl was viral once upon a time, and her livestream coin would reach a super high market cap, but imo not super valuable content or high signal.

that kinda feels like a cop out imo, in that case, all viral slop is valuable because it delivers insight on the psyche of the audience

which, then, at that point, nullifies the original point about markets deriving signal

hard disagree with the example 
incredibly valuable insight on the psyche of the audience 

one man's noise is another man's signal

this is what i’m struggling with

virality doesn’t equal value. they might not even be all that correlated. why should we reward content creators who crate slop?

“we are monetizing culture” isn’t a satisfying answer imo

Yeah great question. 

I think this is where short term voting machine (attention market) vs long term weighing machine (information market) plays out. 

Age of the thing becomes a useful signal and filter.