TLDR
Vitalik Buterin warns against choosing political allegiances solely based on a candidate’s ‘pro-crypto’ stance.
He emphasizes the importance of broader technological freedoms and underlying values that inspired the crypto movement.
Buterin argues that focus on ‘pro-crypto’ stances risks undermining the broader cypherpunk values.
He cautions against supporting politicians who are ‘pro-crypto’ but fail to demonstrate commitment to internationalism and broader freedoms.
The blog post has elicited mixed reactions from crypto industry figures, with some calling Buterin “politically naive.”
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has stirred debate in the cryptocurrency community with a recent blog post cautioning against choosing political allegiances based solely on a candidate’s ‘pro-crypto’ stance.
The post, titled “Against choosing your political allegiances based on who is ‘pro-crypto,’” emphasizes the importance of considering broader technological freedoms and the underlying values that originally inspired the crypto movement.
Buterin argues that the focus on ‘pro-crypto’ stances risks undermining the broader values that brought people into the crypto space. He points out that the original inspiration for crypto came from the cypherpunk movement, which advocated for free and open technology to protect individual freedoms.
This ethos, Buterin stresses, is broader than just cryptocurrency and blockchains, encompassing issues like encrypted messaging, digital identity, and privacy.
The Ethereum creator highlights the importance of internationalism, a cause dear to many in the cypherpunk community.
He cautions that supporting politicians who are ‘pro-crypto’ but fail to demonstrate a commitment to internationalism and broader freedoms could be counterproductive.
Buterin shares personal anecdotes from events like EthCC, where visa accessibility issues prevented some participants from attending, emphasizing that immigration law is crucial for the international crypto community.
Buterin also warns against the ‘pro-crypto’ stance common among authoritarian governments.
He cites Russia’s dual approach of using crypto to evade external restrictions while imposing strict controls on domestic use.
He cautions that politicians who are power-seeking or willing to align with authoritarian figures could adopt similar strategies, ultimately undermining the freedoms that crypto aims to protect.
The blog post has elicited a wide range of reactions from crypto industry figureheads. Some, like Jake Chervinsky, chief legal officer at Variant Fund, acknowledged Buterin’s “solid points” but noted that some readers might misinterpret the message as an endorsement of a specific political party.
You make some solid points here. Too many people will read the headline as “vote Biden!” and miss the rest.
That said, overall, much of this seems too clever by half. Good crypto policy requires electing pro-crypto candidates, period. Political reality beats idealism every time.
— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) July 17, 2024
However, not all responses were positive. Ryan Selkis, CEO of Messari, called Buterin “politically naive” and criticized him for being “an idealist, not a realist.”
Selkis, a vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump, argued that Buterin’s post could be seen as implicit support for what he views as an “anti-tech president.”
It’s also worth noting that Vitalik’s political commentary is meaningless to me, and should be to you as well if your primary focus is American politics.
He is a Canadian and Russian.
I humbly suggest that he fix those governments first, and stay out of American politics.
— Ryan Selkis (d/acc) 🇺🇸 (@twobitidiot) July 17, 2024
The debate comes at a time when cryptocurrency is becoming an increasingly important topic in U.S. politics.
Former President Trump, once a crypto skeptic, has recently embraced the technology and is scheduled to speak at the upcoming Bitcoin conference in Nashville. This shift has led some in the crypto community to view the Republican party as more crypto-friendly.
Buterin’s post emphasizes the need to look beyond surface-level ‘pro-crypto’ stances and consider a politician’s long-term views and broader stance on technological freedoms. He advises examining a politician’s views from years ago and considering how their positions might evolve.
