I've been chewing on this idea for a long time and I have not been able to describe it so well, in so few words as this.
Well done, and thanks
One problem with applying it is that could violate social contracts. When most people are playing by the rules, but one person gains advantage by cheating. Suddenly, it's more a freeloader/jerk move, than anything else.
Admittedly, things get more complicated when many people believe that the social contracts have already been violated, so there's no longer a contract (or "less" of a contract), so they might as well get the advantage, too. Before it got to that point, it started with early cheaters.
The real world isn't like that.
How the causality works there, I don't have good guesses.
But the supposed phenomenon could reduce to simply differing conceptions of what the real world is.
The point is that rules don't matter without consequences for breaking them, and a rule is only as effective as the severity of the consequences.
When you're rewarded for breaking them, you can't even really consider it a rule anymore.
FTX had consequences, but people had a very hard time predicting them for some reason.
I’ve looked at many founders I considered successful, and they all had some card to play that others either: no longer could because the law changed, a relationship nobody else had, or was outright illegal but didn’t matter
I would say that there are no rules, only consequences. Or, the consequences are the rule.