Original title: Crypto's Big Trump Gamble
Original author: Ben Schiller, CoinDesk
Translated by: Mensh, ChainCatcher
Editor: Nianqing, ChainCatcher
This year, the crypto industry finally has its 'friend', and his name is Donald Trump. For years, this industry has been struggling to find a political spokesperson, someone who can guide its liberation ideas to a broader audience. Now, that person is Trump.
He stood on the stage of the Nashville Bitcoin conference, expressing how much he likes people in the crypto industry. He announced the establishment of a Bitcoin strategic reserve. He promised to release Ross Ulbricht. He distributed hamburgers at PubKey in New York. He even started his own DeFi project—World Liberty Financial—and devised an internal management model (what better way to demonstrate loyalty to cryptocurrencies?).
Trump said what cryptocurrencies wanted to hear and did what cryptocurrencies wanted to do, thus attracting millions of dollars in donations. The loudmouths cheer for him, while culture warriors express hatred in the performance. He occupies the political space that the Biden administration and Harris's campaign team could have claimed if they were not so submissive to the Warren wing. What he says is right, because Trump always says what people want him to say. He fits perfectly with the goals of the crypto party, as his politics can adapt to any situation, and the crypto party desperately needs a friend.
I have to admit, all of this makes me personally uncomfortable, not because I have any fondness for Harris, but because Trump has long been an unreasonable friend. He could easily take a completely opposite stance on cryptocurrencies if it benefits him, and he has done so. I am very concerned about cryptocurrencies' embrace of Trump because I find it hard to believe that Trump's principles align with those that attracted me to cryptocurrencies.
So, what are the three reasons we should be cautious as an industry?
Trump may not deliver on his promises.
Many White House officials during Trump's first term talked about his unprincipled nature. His former chief of staff, John Kelly, said he fits the definition of a fascist: someone willing to overturn constitutional norms to achieve his goals.
Here is what a former White House official under Trump said this morning:
John Mitnick stated: Trump is reckless, irritable, vengeful, narcissistic, does not respect the Constitution and the rule of law; Trump is not a conservative; he is more like a dictator and fascist driven by personal interests. He does not care about you and your family as he claims; he only cares about himself.
Seriously, shouldn't we be worried about this? Aligning the crypto movement with an unreliable person, isn't that strange? Crypto should abhor single points of failure, yet it has joined a cult of personality, isn’t that odd?
Trump must take the issue of cryptocurrencies personally to become a politician for cryptocurrencies. Harris and her team have occasionally engaged with cryptocurrencies over the past few months, indicating that they may be trying to play both sides on this issue. This summer, Trump made it clear in his dance with cryptocurrency participants that he would not deal with Democrats. Why?
Because Trump has to be that person: he will not share this issue with Democrats. That's how it is in Nashville. Elon Musk was expected to have a dialogue with Trump at the Bitcoin conference. However, according to an insider and CoinDesk's tracking of Musk's private jet, he turned away when Trump was unwilling to share the stage with him. Trump needs to be that person.
It is certain that the Democrats have abandoned cryptocurrencies themselves. This starts with mining; after the industry returned to the U.S., all new plants went to red states. Democrats began to view Bitcoin mining as an illegal activity harmful to the environment, while Texas and other states consider it part of the grid flexibility program. Personally, I fully support integrating mining into the grid; it is foolish for Democrats to ban mining and lose this industry.
But the interesting question is, how would Trump react if the Democrats really started to seriously support cryptocurrencies?
Alienating outsiders
In pursuit of power and relevance, cryptocurrencies have allied with the Republican Party. It often does not state this publicly, but it has done so. Those managing its campaign teams are all Republicans. The lower-tier candidates it favors are mostly Republicans. When organizations like Stand With Crypto urge people to vote, you know they are not supporting voting for Senator Elizabeth Warren.
These campaign groups do not always explicitly state their preferences. But their allies do, and the effect is often exclusionary. For example, here is former Messari Ryan Serkis discussing his feelings about today's liberal white women.
This is a free country, and Serkis can say whatever he wants. He might even think that what he says is brave. But seriously, does this benefit cryptocurrencies? Does such language align with the goal of cryptocurrency adoption? Would liberal white women, along with other groups Ryan has slandered for the past six months, not feel offended? Would they think that cryptocurrencies are made up of big bad guys like Serkis? If you want to build a broad crypto movement, you certainly do not want to be at odds with women.
Cryptocurrencies will be associated with policies unrelated to cryptocurrencies.
Earlier this year, when I first heard the term 'single-issue voter' related to cryptocurrencies, I immediately thought 'BS'. How can you support a candidate or party on a single issue? Electoral politics does not work that way. When you support someone like Trump, you are automatically supporting a broad range of policies.
Therefore, when crypto offered Trump $10 million to reinterpret the 'Howey Test', it was in support of (in no particular order, just a few of Trump's policies) a 'peace deal' regarding Ukraine (also known as surrender), mass deportation, opposition to abortion, and transgender rights. Is this really the outcome that cryptocurrencies want from a cultural and social perspective?
A cautious approach is wise. The Biden administration and the SEC's opposition to cryptocurrencies over the past three years has been detrimental to the crypto industry, which must respond. However, if this election aligns with someone named Trump, it could bring a whole new set of unforeseen negative consequences.