Originally made for markets, CAPM gives you a clear and general way to think about three things:

• What is the baseline?

• What is the system’s reasonably good output?

• How far is this action from that reference?

That’s all. But that simple frame explains a lot.

In finance, the baseline is the risk-free rate. Government bonds.

The return you get for doing nothing risky. This is the floor.

It exists because the system has already built trust into those instruments.

In social media, the baseline is the attention you get because your friends are already there.

You might post something boring.

Still gets a few likes. Still gets seen.

Why?

Because the system is already populated.

Time is already flowing.

Beyond the baseline, there’s the reasonably good outcome.

The system-standard.

In finance, it’s the market return.

In social media, it’s the views and engagement that thirst traps, clickbait, outrage, and trend-jacking usually get.

These are not the best things.

They are just the formats that the system rewards most often.

So CAPM is not asking: is this thing good?

It’s asking: how close is this thing to what works?

That distance is beta.

It tells you how much your output moves in sync with the system’s trusted engine.

In social media terms, beta is the resemblance to content that already performs.

In startup terms, beta is how much your product looks like what’s already getting users.

So high beta means close alignment with what works.

Low beta means you’re doing something else.

Could break out. Could fail entirely.

Here’s where it gets deeper.

Not every system has a baseline.

In social media, there’s time being spent already.

Your content can attach to that time.

That gives you a floor. A minimum.

Some engagement just for being there.

Baseline greater than zero.

But now take a new video game. Or a new app. Or a brand new platform.

No users. No attention. No guaranteed floor.

You build it. You wait. Nothing happens.

That’s a zero-baseline system.

Sometimes even negative.

You spend money. You host servers. You lose.

If this baseline becomes zero market return becomes the expectation.

So CAPM in this context becomes more than a formula.

It becomes a decision framework.

And now it gets clearer why content creation feels like a market.

Launching a new content format is like launching a startup.

You don’t get credit just for effort.

You don’t even get credit for quality.

The only reward is if you manage to create a new traction.

Social media is like the stock market now.

Similar content gets similar multiples.

Being unique means no one knows how to price you.

At least being similar gives you an expectation. A reasonable range.

So the core insight:

There’s a baseline if the system has one.

There’s a system-standard outcome — what works most of the time.

And there’s a distance between your thing and that standard.

CAPM just quantifies that relationship.

That’s it. It doesn’t predict success.

It just tells you what kind of return you’re eligible for, based on where you stand.

It forces a clean question.

Am I trying to align with what the system rewards?

Or am I trying to create something from nothing?

That’s the only fork that matters.

And here’s another layer.

Why should the system even take a risk on showing your new thing?

Why should they risk giving you a chance when they already have things that prove they work?

There is clear opportunity cost if they miss showing what proves to be working.

So the burden is on you.

You’re not just asking for a shot.

You’re asking for the system to hold back something proven in favor of something uncertain.

CAPM helps you realize that trade-off.

And if you’re the one building something new, you need to know what you’re up against.

The logic doesn’t care what you feel.

It only checks how aligned are you?

Or how strong is your ignition?

And that’s enough to guide the entire decision framework.

And we can learn from the finance industry here.

It is very hard to go off on your own and be right.

That’s why, instead of using independent methods like DCF,
almost all decisions lean toward the market method.

Why?

Because the market gives you a reference.
It tells you what the system already agrees is working.

It removes the need to guess in isolation.

Thus, it is in your own interest to be as close to what works.

Not because you lack originality but because you respect how hard it is to move the system.

In finance, what works is the market.

The same market that serves as the system’s reasonably good output in CAPM.

That tells you everything.

If you’re far from what works, the burden of proof is on you.

If you’re close, the system itself will carry you forward.

This is not about fairness. It’s about flow.

CAPM doesn’t reward invention.

It rewards alignment.

And that’s a principle that works everywhere.

And the best way to get alignment and to stand out is to understand compemimicy and vectors.