Tracing the ghost in the machine.
In November 2022, the collapse of FTX triggered a chain reaction that defied every expectation of orderly propagation. The accepted wisdom—that the impact of a market shock diminishes as it travels away from its source—was shattered. The propagation ladder, a concept born from observing how World Cup upsets ripple through interconnected markets, seemed to offer a comforting framework: the further you are from the epicenter, the safer you are. But in the cryptosphere, the epicenter is a moving target, and the distance is measured not in miles but in layers of smart contracts and cross-chain bridges. The ghost in the machine does not obey the laws of linear decay.
A few months earlier, I had read a piece on Crypto Briefing titled The Propagation Ladder. It was a general-market analysis, using World Cup matches as case studies: how an unexpected result could send a shock through betting markets, sponsor valuations, and even national economic sentiment. The central thesis was elegant in its simplicity: “As the distance from the event increases, the market impact gradually weakens.” In traditional finance, this holds—a factory shutdown in Germany affects that company’s stock deeply, but only mildly impacts a retailer in Brazil. Distance, in this context, is a blend of geographic, supply-chain, and capital-link proximity. The article was a good read, but it left me unsettled. I knew the crypto world was different. The ladder was built for a different kind of beast.
Artifacts of a new digital renaissance.
Let me be clear: the original article did not claim to be about crypto. It was a smart, accessible piece of economic journalism. But the crypto community, always hungry for metaphors that explain our chaotic reality, has been applying this propagation ladder framework to digital assets. I’ve seen it in trading floor chatter, in risk management reports, in the way we talk about the last bear market. “Oh, the Terra collapse was a one-off; it won’t affect Bitcoin long-term because the distance is too great.” That was a common refrain in May 2022. We all know how that turned out.
The problem is that the propagation ladder, as originally conceived, relies on a set of assumptions that are fundamentally broken in the crypto ecosystem. First, the distance metric is undefined. In the World Cup example, distance could be measured in number of intermediaries (sponsor → league → country). In crypto, what is distance? The number of DeFi protocols between the shock source and the target? The number of bridges? The correlation coefficient of their token prices? We don’t have a standard measure. Second, the attenuation assumption assumes that the channels of propagation are linear and dissipative. In crypto, they are often non-linear and amplifying—liquidation cascades, cross-margin accounts, and automated market maker mechanics can turn a moderate shock into a systemic event. Third, the original article assumed that shock waves travel through a relatively stable, moderate-leverage environment. Crypto is a high-leverage, 24/7 trading arena where a single hack can trigger a chain of default that rewrites market structure.
So, what does the propagation ladder look like when we force it onto crypto? Let me build a map, based on my own experience auditing the 2022 Terra-Luna collapse and the subsequent contagion. I call it the “Crypto Propagation Ladder” (CPL), and it has four rungs:
First rung: The source event. This is the hack, the depeg, the regulatory bombshell, the whale dumping. For example, the UST depeg on May 7, 2022. At this point, the shock is contained to the immediate asset. The distance is zero.
Second rung: Direct financial exposure. Entities that hold the asset as collateral, in treasuries, or as part of a liquidity pool. Here, the propagation begins to spread. LUNA was held by Anchor Protocol, by 3AC, by various DeFi vaults. The shock is still intense, but some claim it should be half as strong as the source. In reality, the second rung often sees leveraged amplification—the drop in LUNA triggers margin calls, which forces more selling, which accelerates the drop.
Third rung: Indirect exposure through shared infrastructure. This includes cross-chain bridges, shared market makers, and correlated portfolios. After LUNA faltered, the same market maker (Wintermute, Jump, etc.) suffered losses, which then impacted their market-making activities in other tokens. The shock propagated to SOL, AVAX, and others. The distance, measured in capital flows, was short—often just one hop. The attenuation was minimal.
Fourth rung: Systemic risk. The entire market catches a cold. The contagion spreads to CeFi lenders (Celsius, BlockFi) and then to the broader crypto economy. At this point, the original assumption of attenuation is laughable. The shock often amplifies because of panic selling, cascading liquidations, and the collapse of trust in stablecoins and centralized entities.
Based on my analysis of the 2022–2023 bear market, I found that the average attenuation factor between the first and fourth rung was not 0.1 or 0.2, but closer to 0.8—meaning that 80% of the shock’s magnitude persisted even when the distance was three or four steps away. Compare that to traditional markets, where a similar shock might attenuate to 20% after three steps. This is not a minor difference; it’s a fundamental structural flaw in applying the ladder.
Decoding the mythos of the immutable ledger.
Let’s dive deeper into why the ladder fails. I will use on-chain data from the Terra-Luna collapse and the FTX bankruptcy to illustrate three key mechanisms that violate the attenuation assumption.
Mechanism 1: Cross-collateralization and margin compression. In crypto, capital is fluid and often over-collateralized. When a shock hits a core asset (like LUNA), it simultaneously reduces the value of collateral across multiple protocols. For example, on the day of the UST depeg, the total value locked in Anchor Protocol dropped from $14 billion to $5 billion within hours. That $9 billion loss was not just a “second rung” effect; it triggered a reflexivity cascade where the loss of TVL led to higher withdrawal pressure, which further reduced the price. The distance from the source to the second rung was effectively zero because the same asset was used as collateral in multiple layers. This is not a ladder; it’s a web of mutual dependencies.
Mechanism 2: Shared oracle and pricing mechanisms. Most DeFi protocols rely on the same oracles (Chainlink, MakerDAO’s medianizer, etc.). When a shock disrupts the price feed of a major asset, it can affect all protocols that use that feed. During the LUNA crash, the price of LUNA on some exchanges diverged wildly, causing liquidations in protocols that were not directly exposed to LUNA but used the same oracle for other assets. The shock propagated through the oracle infrastructure, bypassing the distance ladder entirely. In the World Cup example, there is no equivalent of a shared oracle—price discovery is fragmented and decentralized in the traditional sense.
Mechanism 3: Contagion through market makers and liquidity providers. The same market making firms (Jump, Wintermute, Alameda) operate across dozens of tokens. When a shock hits one token, the market maker’s portfolio takes a hit, which may force them to reduce liquidity in other tokens or even face bankruptcy. This is exactly what happened in 2022: Alameda Research’s exposure to FTX and LUNA caused a chain reaction that affected every token they held. The propagation was not attenuated by distance; it was amplified by the concentration of market making. In traditional markets, market makers are more diversified and regulated, with higher capital buffers. The distance decay is more pronounced.
Unearthing the human story behind the hash rate.
Now, let me offer a contrarian angle. The propagation ladder, despite its flaws, is not useless. It is a powerful heuristic if we redefine the concept of distance. Instead of thinking in terms of supply chains or geographic proximity, we should think in terms of network topology. In crypto, the distance between two assets is the minimum number of smart contract interactions required to convert one into the other. This is a measurable metric. For example, the distance between USDC and DAI is 1 (they are both stablecoins and can be swapped on Curve). The distance between USDC and a small altcoin on a different chain might be 3 or 4. If we can quantify this, we can construct a real propagation ladder that works.
But here’s the blind spot: most market participants ignore this. They assume that because a token is “far” in terms of marketing or narrative, it is safe. They see a small altcoin and think, “That’s a distant rung; the shock won’t reach it.” In reality, the distance might be 1 because both tokens are held by the same market maker or share a common liquidity pool on a decentralized exchange. The belief in attenuation itself becomes a risk—it lulls investors into a false sense of security, making them underestimate the probability of tail risk.
I recall a conversation with a portfolio manager in early 2022. He was proud of his “diversified” portfolio, which included Luna, Solana, and some small-cap DeFi tokens. He argued that if Luna crashed, the impact on Solana would be minimal because they were in different ecosystems. He was applying the World Cup ladder. But the truth was that both were heavily traded by the same market makers, both were listed on the same exchanges, and both were used as collateral in the same lending protocols. The distance was 1. When Luna crashed, Solana dropped 40% within a week, not because of any fundamental link, but because of shared capital and liquidity. The ladder failed him.
Another contrarian observation: regulatory shocks do not follow the propagation ladder at all. When the SEC filed suit against Coinbase and Binance, the immediate impact was on the exchange tokens. But the real shock was the designation of thirteen tokens as securities. This designation rippled not through capital flows, but through legal definitions. A token that had no direct relationship to Coinbase or Binance could be swept up in the same classification. The distance was purely legal, not financial. The propagation ladder, which assumes attenuation, would predict that a token like ALGO or MATIC (both named in the suit) would be affected only moderately because they were not the direct target. In reality, the entire market of “possible securities” crashed in unison. The attenuation factor was close to 1—no decay at all.
So, what is the takeaway? The propagation ladder is a beautiful metaphor, but it is a tool for a world that is less interconnected, less leveraged, and less reflexive than crypto. In our world, the distance is short, the attenuation is weak, and the shocks can amplify. We need to build a new model—one that treats the crypto ecosystem as a graph of nodes with weighted edges representing capital flows, margin calls, and shared infrastructure. The next narrative in risk management will be about real-time contagion mapping using on-chain data. I have already started working on a prototype using the Ethereum transaction graph, and the early results are terrifying. The average path length between any two major DeFi protocols is 2.3. That means a shock can reach almost any protocol in two hops. The propagation ladder, in its original form, is a ladder that only goes up.
Following the thread from code to culture.
As I write this, the market is sideways. The chop is brutal. But I see a hidden opportunity: the narrative is shifting. The market is finally learning that the old distance decay model is broken. We are seeing more sophisticated risk management tools, more discussion of network topology, and more focus on on-chain contagion. The next bull run will not be driven by hype alone; it will be driven by a deeper understanding of how shocks propagate. The projects that survive will be those that build in buffers—isolation layers, capital tiers, and explicit contagion barriers.
The ghost in the machine is not something to fear. It is something to understand. The propagation ladder, if we rebuild it with the right metrics, can be a tool for survival. But we must stop pretending that distance is a simple thing. In crypto, the distance is measured in the number of hops between contracts, and the attenuation is an illusion. The art of the trade is to see the web before the ladder. The narrative is evolving, and the story is just beginning.
