In a blog post published on July 17, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin expressed his concerns about the increasing trend within the crypto community to support political candidates based solely on their stance towards cryptocurrencies. Buterin warned that such a narrow focus could betray the broader values that initially motivated the creation of cryptocurrencies.
Buterin highlighted the significant role of crypto in political discourse, noting various legislative efforts to regulate blockchain activities. He cited examples like the Markets in Crypto Assets regulation (MiCA) in the EU, efforts to regulate stablecoins in the UK, and regulatory actions by the SEC in the United States. While he viewed many of these legislative efforts as mostly reasonable, he expressed concern over extreme measures such as treating almost all coins as securities or banning self-hosted wallets. These fears have driven the crypto community to favor candidates who are lenient towards crypto.
However, Buterin argued against this trend, asserting that making political decisions based solely on a candidate’s crypto stance risks undermining the deeper values that drew people to the crypto space. He noted that within the crypto community, there is often an overemphasis on the centrality of money and financial freedom. While he agreed that financial freedom is crucial, he cautioned that an exclusive focus on cryptocurrency is not aligned with the original ideology that inspired the creation of crypto.
Buterin traced the roots of cryptocurrency back to the cypherpunk movement, which advocated for free and open technology to protect individual freedoms. He recalled early battles against restrictive copyright legislation and the importance of decentralization. Bitcoin, according to Buterin, was seen as an extension of this spirit, offering a decentralized means of online payment.
Buterin argued that the ideology that originally created crypto was about more than just financial freedom; it encompassed a broader vision of decentralization and individual liberty. He pointed out other technological freedoms just as foundational as financial freedom, such as the freedom and privacy of communication, digital identity, and thought. He stressed that these freedoms are increasingly important as more of our lives become mediated by technology, particularly AI.
Later that day, Charles Hoskinson, co-founder and CEO of IOG, posted a response on the social media platform X, presenting a starkly different viewpoint. Hoskinson’s response focused on the practicalities of political engagement for the crypto community. He emphasized that his primary goal has always been to keep government out of crypto entirely. In situations where this is not possible, he argued, the choice of which candidates to support becomes clear.
Hoskinson criticized politicians who support measures like CBDCs, lawsuits against non-custodial wallets, and aggressive actions against crypto leaders and exchanges. He argued that the crypto community should not support these politicians. He framed politics as a game of cause and effect, suggesting that if politicians understand that bullying and harassing the crypto industry leads to lost elections, they would avoid such actions. According to Hoskinson, the decision is simple: vote against those who harm the industry.
Hoskinson’s response diverged sharply from Buterin’s caution against single-issue voting. He argued that in the 2024 election, the crypto community should be single-issue voters, prioritizing candidates who are pro-crypto. He emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating that a vote for Biden would be a vote for the death of the American crypto industry. Hoskinson concluded by urging the community to vote for pro-crypto candidates, underscoring the importance of protecting the industry from hostile political forces.
