Blockchain networks are the virtual versions of Nation States. Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., are best thought of in a framework that incorporates political attachment and cultural pride.
Blockchains are inherently political because they rely on consensus; network rules are meant to allude to an overall belief among network users. For example, Bitcoin only has 1MB size blocks, an original design feature that has survived much debate. People then participate/contribute to the networks with which they have the strongest affiliation. Granted, some people only use chains for trading, or some other speculative desire. In this case, the ends are the only axiom – what is cheapest and fastest is best. However, for some users, the belief system of the network genuinely matters. These users generally want a better world system and store a significant amount of their wealth on-chain. For the anti-establishment degenerate, choosing who to side with is important and it is this choice that leads to the maximalism we see so often in crypto.
These networks are important. They are what some see as the future and where people store and transact their money. This attachment is closely analogous to national identity, and the discourse online (particularly the toxicity) is something seen in national conflict.
Typically, nationalism is displayed by those who benefit from the nationalist agenda (1). Alternatively, ethnic groups also provide a magnetizing force. Either way, both describe the maximalist well. Nations consist of people who are part of the state, either voluntarily or not. Blockchains are unique, at least at the moment, because network participation is entirely voluntary. Only you have the power of your secret key, and your participation is at will. Obviously, when you must transact using a network, this American-like freedom is hampered somewhat. However, for the most part, a voluntary user describes the normal one.
So blockchains can be described as large virtue-aligned groups interacting voluntarily with one another. This casts the average network participant as a member of a nation-state. These communities' aggression (and toxicity) come out when they have to defend their values. There are a lot of strong and bad-faith actors who would rather not have the sovereignty that blockchains grant. This requires a lot of effort to fight, which is the noble plight many of the core teams are tangled in. As an aside, an example of this bad faith can be seen in the CFA Franc by France; check out this article.
Additionally, building something meaningful and impactful generally means going against the grain and suffering the winds of the majority. People outside of your community will not agree with your premises, and it is up to you to retain the values within. I think this video best surmises the issue.
Balaji is onto something with his Network State hypothesis. Blockchains exhibit many qualities seen in a nation-state, and the framework for nationalist thinking (as seen in the Stanford Encyclopedia) is, for the most part, accurate.