Because, for some, cryptocurrencies are the defining political issue of our times

With all due respect to Molly Jane Zuckermann AND Jeff Albusthe co-authors of a recent Blockworks column ruling out the idea of ​​voting for pro-crypto politicians in the next US election, voting your conscience is a good thing. Despite the headline (“Only a Madman Would Only Vote on Cryptocurrencies”), the article was quite measured, but definitely hit a nerve.

Note: The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates. This is an excerpt from The Node newsletter, a daily roundup of the most crucial crypto news on CoinDesk and beyond. You can sign up to get the full service newsletter here.

“Voting for a candidate you would not otherwise support, simply because he favors deregulation of an industry in which you have profit motives, is a compromise you should not make,” wrote editors Zuckerman and Albus. They are certainly not the first to express this sentiment. Fortune editor Jeff John Roberts did supported that cryptocurrencies’ growing alignment with Trump supporters like Senator Tom Emmer is bad business.

While all of these people are right to some extent that political support for cryptocurrencies is often more a matter of people’s scholarship rather than a moral crusade, it is undeniable that cryptocurrencies are an increasingly relevant political issue. And for some it is the decisive question of our times. Cryptocurrencies are not just an investment opportunity, they are a movement, a philosophy and a way of life – and there are true believers.

Zuckerman and Albus’ problem is nominally about whether cryptocurrencies become a “single-issue vote” for both Democratic and Republican candidates, but in reality the entire conversation they’ve tapped into is actually about whether to vote for Trump . For some cryptocurrency advocates, the question is existential; four more years of Biden means more unbridled regulation through law enforcement, more gridlock preventing effective cryptocurrency legislation, and more anti-crypto rhetoric coming from the highest political offices.

During President Biden’s reign, US lawmakers and regulators have become increasingly hostile to cryptocurrencies, and their actions are undeniably having a huge impact on the direction of an entire global industry. Just last week, for example, the re-staking platform EigenLayer, called one of the most important innovations of blockchain since the launch of Ethereum ten years ago, it has been heavily criticized for designing a highly restrictive air launch. But, under the current regulatory regime, it was essentially EigenLayer’s only move unless he wanted to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The story continues

It is true that cryptocurrencies have bipartisan support, however it is clear (and frankly has been for years) that cryptocurrencies get more love from Republicans. Politic relationships that a critical vote – “the first time a full house of Congress has passed a major crypto policy bill” – is essentially dead when it comes with a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Meanwhile, the most vocal supporters of cryptocurrencies in office today are Republicans, figures like Sens. Emmer and Cynthia Lummis.

So can you really blame people like Ryan Selkis, Mike Dudas, or Mark Cuban for thinking that if they want decent crypto policy in the US, the industry needs to align with the Republicans?

Critics may be right that former President Donald Trump gave a ringing approval of cryptocurrencies during a dinner at Mar-a-Lago last week, only recently got into crypto either because he’s made millions selling NFTs or because it’s another way for him to paint President Biden as out of touch. But these moments matter. At a time when the entire US cryptocurrency industry feels under attack from the government, it’s probably a welcome feeling to know that someone with as much influence as Trump is willing to speak out in support.

See also: Will Biden have the final say on a controversial crypto rule? | Opinion

I understand that many people think that crypto voting for Trump is like drinking from a poisoned chalice. After all, when he was in office, Trump’s cabinet tried (and failed) to pass emergency regulations that would have banned “self-hosted wallets”, that is, exactly what makes cryptocurrencies a viable technology in the first place. There is no guarantee that, if re-elected, Trump would actually be more supportive of cryptocurrencies than Biden currently is; and it seems highly unlikely that either candidate fully understands or appreciates why cryptocurrencies are technologically powerful.

I understand that, ideally, voters should care more about things like abortion, environmental and immigration policy than cryptocurrencies. (Most likely yes.) I understand Zuckerman and Albus’ disgust with Trump, his accusations of sexual assault, alleged fraud and election denialism. I understand why, from a visual perspective, cryptocurrency presents itself as conservative is a dubious proposition, a convenient way to get Over 40% of the population to turn their minds against it, as Laura Shin astutely pointed out.

See also: Cryptocurrencies are an election issue this year. Is this a good thing? | Opinion

But I also understand why figures like Selkis are supporting cryptocurrency for a political cause. In reality, they are simply noticing that cryptocurrencies were already a partisan issue and are acting accordingly. It’s common to hear that because blockchains strive to be “credibly neutral” the industry itself is apolitical, but that’s simply not true. Cryptocurrencies are a check on government; it is and always has been a political project. As I wrote in 2021:

“If Bitcoin solved the climate crisis, it would happen through freer and more successful markets, not progressive planning. If Bitcoin expanded access to basic financial services, it could never solve economic inequality: it is not possible to redistribute the massive holdings of early Bitcoiners without destroying the system’s technologically protected property rights. If Bitcoin prevents war by diminishing state power, it will also dismantle the progressive welfare state.”

To be clear: I’m not advocating that anyone vote a particular way. Frankly, I agree that ideally cryptocurrencies would not be an election issue. I wish it wasn’t politicized. But cryptocurrencies exist in the context of all other issues and are currently influenced by politics. And it is perfectly natural that people who think about and use cryptocurrencies every day elevate them as the most important issue, especially considering that it is not just a philosophy but an investment.

It’s unclear why anyone would suggest people vote against their own interests. For some, cryptocurrencies are a microcosm of everything that’s important, because ultimately it’s about letting people determine for themselves what to value.

Source