By Owen Miller

On Jan. 17, 2025, three days before Inauguration Day, U.S. President Donald Trump released a cryptocurrency called the Trump meme coin, which trades under the ticker symbol $TRUMP. Within two days, its market capitalization soared to $15 billion, making the coin more valuable than companies such as Dollar Tree, Logitech, and Moderna. 

Two days after the successful launch of the $TRUMP coin, the first lady released her own $MELANIA coin. Within a few hours, $MELANIA surpassed a market capitalization of $2 billion. 

These “meme coins” demonstrate a fundamental problem within the cryptocurrency market: The price at which a cryptocurrency trades often has little correlation with its intrinsic value or long-term viability as an investment. Unlike traditional investments that generate cash flow and earnings, cryptocurrencies rely solely on perception and speculation. 

“Meme coins” are generally defined as cryptocurrencies created primarily for entertainment value, with limited real-world utility. Outside of $TRUMP and $MELANIA, notable examples include Dogecoin, which has a market capitalization of $53 billion*, and Fartcoin, which represents a measly $1.5 billion* market capitalization. While these names seem comical, the reality is that billions of dollars are riding on their success. Somewhere, someone is anxiously watching Fartcoin’s price action, hoping for life-changing returns. 

Many investors dismiss meme coins as speculative nonsense while simultaneously viewing more established cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, as legitimate assets. Bitcoin, with an immense valuation of $2.1 trillion*, is widely considered to be a safe investment. It is often referred to as “digital gold.” Major companies, like Tesla, and even governments such as El Salvador, hold Bitcoin reserves. 

Bitcoin’s market dominance, however, is built on a paradox. According to popular thought, Bitcoin has real-world utility and is a legitimate store of value. Bitcoin investors claim it is a quick and efficient way to make payments online without a third-party intermediary, such as a bank. Furthermore, since the supply of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million coins, they claim it will act as a natural hedge against inflation. 

However, these two arguments directly contradict each other. One cannot have a means of exchange that is used for everyday purchases but is also meant to be an inflation hedge and speculative asset. With a limited supply, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. 

Over time, the demand for Bitcoin will theoretically go up forever as productivity and production increase in the underlying economy. However, since its supply is finite, this continuous increase in demand for the currency will also push the price of Bitcoin upward forever. In this scenario, holders would be discouraged from spending their coins today, as holding onto them promises greater value tomorrow. This deflationary nature undermines Bitcoin’s legitimacy as a practical medium of exchange. Government-backed currencies, by contrast, incorporate inflation precisely to encourage spending and other economic activity. The way Bitcoin is structured makes it highly unlikely to be used as a medium of exchange in the future. 

So, with Bitcoin’s value being based largely on perception, how is it any different from $TRUMP, $MELANIA or even $FARTCOIN? Fundamentally, these coins share key characteristics. They are built on blockchain technology, have a fixed supply, and can be transacted while being decentralized. Yet, Bitcoin is seen as a legitimate investment, while meme coins are dismissed as speculation. This distinction is steeped in market perception rather than objective utility. If enough people suddenly decide that $FARTCOIN is as legitimate as Bitcoin, who’s to say it couldn’t surpass Bitcoin’s market cap? Maybe, in the future, we will be paying for gas bills in $FARTCOIN and groceries in Bitcoin. 

The reality is that cryptocurrency investing resembles a popularity contest more than a rational market. Bitcoin leads not because of its inherent supremacy but because it has the most credibility with investors. Bitcoin is the modern-day version of tulips, while meme coins are the weeds. Investors flock to the shinier option, reinforcing its dominance, but that dominance lasts only as long as collective perception sustains it. 

As $TRUMP and $MELANIA have demonstrated, the underlying nature of the cryptocurrency market is concerning. There is little inherent value in any cryptocurrency, from $TRUMP to $BTC. $TRUMP had just as much of a right to be worth $15 billion at its peak as Bitcoin has in its current valuation of $2.1 trillion. Ignoring the mania around these coins, future use cases of crypto do not look bright. Buyers of cryptocurrencies are not investors, but rather speculators, hoping to offload their holdings to someone willing to pay more in the future. The release of recent meme coins has painfully proven that cryptocurrency prices are not driven by real-world utility, but merely the shininess of their appearance.

*All pricing information is accurate as of Feb. 9, 2025

By Shalin Bhatia

In the United States, health disparities contribute significantly to economic inequality and mortality rates. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, low socioeconomic status is positively correlated with an increased risk of developing and dying from cardiovascular diseases. The correlation exists in terms of mental health, too; low levels of household income per capita, as well as parental education, are directly associated with increased mental health problems in children and adolescents. The connection between low-income levels and greater health problems is deeply rooted in systemic social inequalities, often perpetuated by the privileges or disadvantages assigned to different communities.

Social inequality manifests in numerous forms, including stark differences in living conditions. Neighborhoods facing higher poverty rates often lack access to nutritious food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and safe living environments. These factors increase the likelihood of illness as well as reduce overall life expectancy. Consequently, people living in underprivileged areas face a disproportionate burden of diseases like diabetes, asthma, and hypertension. The health problems exacerbated by these living conditions not only lead to premature deaths but also hinder economic productivity. Those who are frequently ill or have family members needing constant care are often unable to work consistently, which reduces their lifetime earnings and limits economic mobility.

Thus, health disparities are not only devastating for individuals but also contribute to major economic losses on a national scale. When people in lower-income communities experience poorer health outcomes, their communities collectively face both economic hardship and social decline. Additionally, the country as a whole suffers due to reduced workforce productivity, which directly impacts GDP growth and financial stability. Without addressing these disparities, the status quo remains dire, as inequality in health and economics is interwoven with residential segregation and geographic disadvantage. Living conditions determine access to healthcare, the lack of which frequently leads to early mortality and economic hardship.

Health technologies offer a promising solution to these deeply ingrained problems. These technologies are expanding rapidly, providing innovative ways to increase healthcare access across socioeconomically diverse populations. From telemedicine to mobile health clinics, these technologies reduce barriers to care and help bridge the gaps caused by social inequalities and gentrification. By improving access to healthcare services in underserved communities, health technologies mitigate some of the harmful effects of unequal living conditions. As a result, despite currently holding low adoption rates among lower-income populations, health technologies hold the potential to not only improve individual health outcomes but also protect the United States from further economic downturns associated with health disparities.

Sources

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213700

www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/health_equity/socioeconomic.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/health_equity/neighborhood.htm

https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/health-technologies

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6589829/#:~:text=Mobile%20health%20(mHealth)%20technologies%20could,elderly%2C%20and%20populations%20with%20disabilities.