1.) Writing on immutable and distributed media emphasizes different qualities and characteristics than writing on centrally owned and censorable media. Consider the difference between writing on ordinal inscriptions on bitcoin versus writing on social media platform. 

2.) Writing on a social media platform inherently incentivizes private extraction and short term relevance (news), while writing on immutable media inherently incentivizes the opposite; public benefit and long-term relevance (theology & philosophy). This is in the underlying design of the media themselves. 

3.) Social media is modeled on television broadcast model; the platform is privately owned by a group of individuals in a corporation. The persons who publicly use the network inherently act in imitation of the design of the network as a whole, following its incentives. So each person acts like a miniature corporate broadcaster, who seeks to privately profit and extract available resources from the network. The toxicity of social media is built into its underlying design.

4.) Similarly, the data that is generated by the network (by the public) is then preserved according to private criteria of the individuals who own the corporation. And since each person who uses the network inherently acts in imitation of the network as a whole, there is no reason why the information they share within the network should be for purpose other than private criteria of importance. And so the information that is shared is always of only short-term relevance. The network has no design mechanism to discover what is truly of public importance. If we had a different underlying medium, we would have different incentives.

5.) The underlying television-broadcast design of the social media regime, creates incentives for private extraction of resources and short term relevance of information. This inherently incentivizes a "race-to-the-bottom": a mutually reinforced degradation of quality of sharing. And it actively prevents a scenario where the overall quality of sharing is mutually enhancing.

6.) How could we incentivize a network where the circulation and preservation of information is of increasingly good quality? The nature of the underlying medium would have to be constituted such that the information discovered and shared on it would be of public benefit and of enduring relevance.

7.) Writing on immutable and distributed network with ordinal inscriptions on bitcoin, the communication is inherently costly to transmit and to sustain. This is due to the requirement to expend energy to the network in order to inscribe text and validate transactions to the network (proof-of-work). This ensures that the information being communicated has some sacrifice of energy associated with it; it isn’t cheap to communicate the signal as it is on social media. This ensures that the communication is not merely in an individual’s private interest but is more likely to also be of public benefit. The inherent cost of communication is already a material contribution to the network as a whole.

8.) With the bitcoin network, the storage of the data is also not localized to one data center but is validated and copied across many nodes all over the world. This means that the integrity of the data is higher. The network state cannot be changed once it is inscribed and validated. The underlying incentive of the medium is that the fidelity and integrity of inscribed data and text is inherently higher. The design of the medium itself is built to incentivize long-term, immutable integrity of the data.

9.) The reason why bitcoin, ordinal inscriptions (and NFTs on ethereum) have not been understood up to this point, is that they have still been used mostly with a "social media" mentality of private extraction and short-term relevance. Most people on social media are habituated to these "social values" and take them as timeless facts of social reality, rather than as conventions. This contrasts with the inherent design of immutable, distributed networks, which is mutually enhancing ("race-to-the-top"). Ordinal inscriptions (and NFTs) represent an alternative, almost opposite, economic and political incentive to the social media regime.

10.) It is difficult to see the possibility of a social polity that is inherently designed around public benefit and enduring, or even eternal, relevance, where private ownership is not in conflict with just public distribution. Yet this is what bitcoin represents within the digital sphere: private ownership (wealth, property) that is in harmony with public distribution (transparency and integrity of data). For this reason, it seems that the bitcoin network was likely designed for inherently religious and philosophical, contemplative minds, who recognize that it transcends contract money and social contract media.