History may not repeat, but it sure knows how to slam a hip hop lyric. Okay, that doesn’t sound great coming from a pale and male (not stale, never stale) writer of a certain age. But, damn, the more things change, the more you hear discordant echoes.

And it’s not just the unending cyclicality of market booms and busts, fantastical hot air balloons that somehow rise before they splat, or even the illusory solidity of a trillion here and a trillion there, give or take. It's how we perpetually forget it’s a rhyme, not a replay, and dance the same steps over again.

Over the weekend, Benjamin Pimentel, Protocol’s extraordinarily insightful fintech reporter, asked a selection of been here/seen this marketing veterans to compare how today’s crypto executives are “navigating” the current 9 zero loss, compared with their dotcom counterparts. You can read his take here.

I have to admit, my first reaction was a little sour: “whether they’re “navigating” the catastrophe or just pretending is an open question.” But that’s really beside the point, isn’t it? After all, there was plenty of doomsaying going on circa 1998 – 2001—yours truly pushing “after the party’s over” op-ed takes in Adweek and other publications included—and none of it did a lick of good.

Players got to play, investors got to invest, and nobody wants to hop off the get rich quick express until last call. In that way, dotcom and crypto are clones; given the core motivation it could hardly be otherwise. But that’s just sorry-ass cynicism speaking and, as my mother used to say, “sorry doesn’t feed the dinosaurs.”

What would? How about a stab at what might be a hint of a glimmer of a clue about a path forward. After all, it seems virtually certain that crypto, like blockchain as a whole, is certain to persist if, for no other reason, that an entire generation is going to grow up with the expectation it will.

Three thoughts, all related to marketing because, you really don’t need an ad idiot’s take on bitcoin technology, macroeconomic theory, or the right drill to use for your upcoming neurosurgery.

First are the “thou shalt nots”—specifically, thou shalt not double down on FOMO in the face of prospectively devastating customer risk. Sadly, that’s just what we’ve been seeing and with flagrant disregard for ethical decency—as Pimentel points out, the prevailing meme still seems to be, “have fun being poor.”  

Second, are the “thou shalts”—a robust list of positives that build on the fact that there’s a blazing category opportunity for brilliant, bold and, dare we think it, strategic and responsible leadership. This isn’t a matter of pure altruism: the self-interested are advised to recall that a certain major soda maker defines brand value as “the lifetime value of the customer to the company.” Generally, that’s a less attractive prospect if the customer is going to spend her life buying discount cat food because the premium costs too much.

Third, are the “we shoulds”—and this relates to crypto companies, governments, schools; everyone with an interest in an informed and reasonably healthy consumer society. Step one is education, giving people what they need to understand what this stuff really is, how to think about it in critical terms, and how it fits, or doesn’t, in your financial portfolio. Personal POV: first DeFi brand or corporate leader who puts this on the top of the agenda gets pole position to be the next Warren Buffet.

But I’ll go further than that. In his article, Pimentel includes my point that the prevailing crypto mantra seems to be “you don’t lose until you get out of the game.” But, maybe, the more interesting take is this: “first one to change the game gets to win.”