With
all
due
respect
to
Molly
Jane
Zuckerman
and
Jeff
Albus,
the
co-authors
of
a
recent
Blockworks
column
discounting
the
idea
of
voting
for
pro-crypto
politicians
in
the
upcoming
election
in
the
U.S.,
voting
your
conscience
is
a
good
thing.
Despite
the
headline
(“Only
a
fool
would
vote
on
crypto
alone”),
the
piece
was
fairly
measured
–
but
it
certainly
struck
a
nerve.
Note:
The
views
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
pivotal
crypto
news
on
CoinDesk
and
beyond.
You
can
subscribe
to
get
the
full
newsletter
here.
“Voting
for
a
candidate
you
would
not
otherwise
support,
simply
because
they
favor
the
deregulation
of
a
sector
in
which
you
hold
a
profit
motive,
is
a
compromise
that
you
should
not
make,”
editors
Zuckerman
and
Albus
wrote.
They
certainly
aren’t
the
first
to
express
this
sentiment.
Fortune
editor
Jeff
John
Roberts
has
argued
that
crypto’s
increasing
alignment
with
Trump
supporters
like
Sen.
Tom
Emmer
is
a
bad
deal.
While
all
these
folks
are
right
to
some
extent
that
political
support
for
crypto
is
often
more
about
peoples’
bags
rather
than
a
moral
crusade,
it
is
undeniable
that
crypto
is
an
increasingly
relevant
political
issue.
And
for
some,
it
is
the
defining
issue
of
our
times.
Crypto
isn’t
just
an
investment
opportunity,
it’s
a
movement,
a
philosophy
and
a
way
of
life
–
and
there
are
true
believers.
Zuckerman
and
Albus’
issue
is
nominally
about
crypto
becoming
a
“single-issue
vote,”
whether
cast
in
favor
of
Democrat
or
Republican
candidates
–
but
in
reality,
the
whole
conversation
they
tapped
into
is
really
about
whether
to
vote
for
Trump.
For
some
crypto
supporters,
the
issue
is
existential;
another
four
years
of
Biden
means
more
wanton
regulation
by
enforcement,
more
gridlock
preventing
actual
crypto
legislation
and
more
anti-crypto
rhetoric
coming
from
the
highest
political
office.
During
President
Biden’s
reign,
U.S.
legislators
and
regulators
have
become
increasingly
hostile
to
crypto,
and
their
actions
are
undeniably
having
an
outsized
impact
on
the
direction
of
an
entire
global
industry.
Just
last
week,
for
instance,
re-staking
platform
EigenLayer,
called
one
of
the
most
important
blockchain
innovations
since
the
launch
of
Ethereum
a
decade
ago,
was
heavily
criticized
for
designing
a
highly
restrictive
airdrop.
But,
under
the
current
regulatory
regime,
it
was
essentially
EigenLayer’s
only
move
unless
it
wanted
to
invite
a
U.S.
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
lawsuit.
It
is
true
that
crypto
has
bipartisan
support,
however
it
is
clear
(and
frankly
has
been
for
years)
that
crypto
gets
more
love
from
Republicans.
Politico
reports
that
a
critical
vote
–
“the
first
time
a
full
chamber
of
Congress
has
taken
up
a
big
crypto
policy
bill”
–
is
essentially
dead
on
arrival
with
a
Democrat
controlled
House
and
Senate.
Meanwhile,
the
most
vocal
supporters
of
crypto
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
if
they
want
decent
crypto
policy
in
the
U.S.,
the
industry
has
to
align
itself
with
Republicans?
Critics
might
be
right
in
saying
that
former
President
Donald
Trump,
who
gave
a
ringing
endorsement
of
crypto
at
a
Mar-a-Lago
dinner
last
week,
only
recently
took
a
shine
to
crypto
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
count.
At
a
time
when
the
entire
U.S.
crypto
industry
feels
like
it’s
under
assault
by
the
government,
it
is
likely
a
welcome
feeling
knowing
someone
with
as
much
influence
as
Trump
is
willing
to
speak
out
in
support.
See
also:
Will
Biden
Get
the
Final
Say
Over
a
Controversial
Crypto
Rule?
|
Opinion
I
understand
that
many
people
think
crypto’s
vote
being
cast
for
Trump
is
like
drinking
from
a
poisoned
chalice.
After
all,
when
in
office,
Trump’s
cabinet
tried
(and
failed)
to
push
through
emergency
rules
that
would
have
banned
“self-hosted
wallets,”
i.e.
exactly
what
makes
crypto
a
viable
technology
in
the
first
place.
There
is
no
guarantee
that
if
reelected
Trump
would
actually
be
any
more
favorable
to
crypto
than
Biden
is
currently;
and
it
seems
highly
unlikely
that
either
candidate
fully
understands
or
appreciates
why
crypto
is
technologically
potent.
I
understand
that,
ideally,
voters
should
care
more
about
things
like
abortion,
environmental
and
immigration
policy
than
crypto.
(Most
probably
do.)
I
understand
Zuckerman
and
Albus’
distaste
for
Trump,
his
sexual
assault
charges,
alleged
fraud
and
election
denialism.
I
understand
why,
optically,
crypto
casting
itself
as
conservative
is
a
dubious
proposition,
an
expedient
way
to
get
40+%
of
the
population
to
turn
their
minds
against
it,
as
Laura
Shin
astutely
pointed
out.
See
also:
Crypto
Is
an
Election
Issue
This
Year.
Is
That
a
Good
Thing?
|
Opinion
But
I
also
understand
why
figures
like
Selkis
are
championing
crypto
into
a
political
cause.
Actually,
they
are
simply
noticing
that
crypto
already
was
a
partisan
issue
and
acting
in
accordance.
It’s
common
to
hear
that
because
blockchains
strive
to
be
“credibly
neutral”
that
the
industry
itself
is
apolitical,
but
that
simply
isn’t
true.
Crypto
is
a
check
on
the
government;
it
is
and
always
has
been
a
political
project.
As
I
wrote
in
2021:
“If
Bitcoin
solved
the
climate
crisis,
it
would
be
through
successful,
freer
markets
–
not
progressive
planning.
If
Bitcoin
expands
access
to
basic
financial
services,
it
could
never
solve
economic
inequality
–
you
cannot
redistribute
early
Bitcoiners’
massive
holdings
without
destroying
the
system’s
technologically
protected
property
rights.
If
Bitcoin
prevents
war
by
diminishing
the
power
of
the
state,
it
will
also
dismantle
the
progressive
welfare
state.”
To
be
clear:
I’m
not
arguing
for
anyone
to
vote
in
any
particular
way.
Frankly,
I
agree
that
ideally
crypto
wouldn’t
be
an
election
issue.
I
wish
it
weren’t
politicized.
But
crypto
exists
in
the
context
of
all
other
issues,
and
is
currently
being
affected
by
politics.
And
it’s
perfectly
natural
that
people
who
think
about
and
use
crypto
everyday
would
elevate
it
as
the
most
important
issue
–
especially
considering
that
it’s
not
only
a
philosophy
but
an
investment.
It
is
unclear
why
anyone
would
suggest
people
vote
against
their
interests.
For
some,
crypto
is
a
microcosm
of
all
else
that’s
important
–
because
in
the
end,
it’s
all
about
letting
people
determine
for
themselves
what
to
value.
