Against choosing your political allegiances based on who is "pro-crypto"
The article warns against aligning political views solely based on cryptocurrency support, emphasizing broader values rooted in cypherpunk ethos. It advocates for comprehensive political engagement beyond crypto-specific issues and cautions against authoritarian exploitation of crypto.
Read original articleThe article discusses the trend of aligning political allegiances based on support for cryptocurrency, cautioning against overlooking broader values that underpin the crypto space. It emphasizes the historical roots of crypto in the cypherpunk movement's ethos of protecting individual freedoms through technology. The author argues for a more comprehensive approach to political engagement beyond crypto-specific issues, highlighting the importance of freedom in communication, digital identity, privacy of thought, and access to information. The piece also touches on the implications of internationalism in the context of cryptocurrency and the need to assess politicians' stances on global issues. Additionally, it warns against assuming current "pro-crypto" attitudes will remain consistent over time and raises concerns about authoritarian governments' selective embrace of crypto for control purposes. The article encourages readers to delve deeper into politicians' values and potential conflicts between decentralization and acceleration in the crypto space.
Related
Vitalik strikes me as being very naive about the process of policy-making. All politicians are, by definition, power-seeking individuals. They're seeking the power afforded to them by a seat on city council, as governor, a member of congress, etc. This is simply the nature of the political process. They may even be seeking power in pursuit of a noble objective, but they are seeking power nonetheless.
Realpolitik as a non-politician means aligning yourself with whoever best represents your interests at that particular point in time. One election cycle that may be Party A, but in the future it could be Party B. It could differ at the federal, state, or local level. Frequent elections and term limits ensure that turnover will happen, so change will be the only constant. Flexibility is required.
Waiting for the perfectly ideologically-aligned candidate sounds nice, but in reality it means you'll be waiting forever. All politicians are flawed, and many will simply tell you what they think you want to hear. Their behaviour is amenable to incentives, however, which is why donations are such an important - if maligned - mechanism for accountability.
Marc & Ben are being practical. They've observed that the behaviour of one party has run directly counter to their interests over the last several years and they're aligning themselves with the party that is at least proposing a better set of policies.
That's just... how this stuff works and has always worked.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/63ad2147-0aa7-4e28-9cf5-6ce3ce7a2...
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/05/congress-blocked-se...