Introduction
Over the past few years, “crypto” has become a major topic in politics. Various countries are considering laws to regulate blockchain and cryptocurrency. In the European Union, there is the Markets in Crypto Assets regulation (MiCA). The UK is working on stablecoin regulations. In the United States, the SEC is trying to regulate crypto through different laws and enforcement actions. Some of these laws are reasonable, but there are fears that governments might take extreme steps like treating almost all cryptocurrencies as securities or banning self-hosted wallets. Because of these fears, some people in the crypto space are becoming more politically active and choosing their political allegiances based on who is “pro-crypto.”
Vitalik Buterin argues against choosing political allegiances based only on a politician’s stance on crypto. He believes that doing so can lead people away from the values that brought them to the crypto space in the first place.
Crypto is More Than Just Money
In the crypto community, there is often a focus on the freedom to hold and spend money, or tokens, as the most important political issue. While this is important, it was not the original reason why crypto was created.
Vitalik Buterin explains that crypto was born from the cypherpunk movement, which aimed to use technology to protect and enhance individual freedoms. In the 2000s, the main goal was to fight restrictive copyright laws pushed by big corporations. A famous case was Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, where a woman was forced to pay $222,000 for downloading 24 songs illegally. The tools used in this fight were torrent networks, encryption, and internet anonymization. Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, made it clear that decentralization was key to protecting freedoms.
Bitcoin extended this idea to internet payments, allowing for decentralized and private transactions. But focusing only on cryptocurrency and blockchain misses the broader goals of the cypherpunk movement.
Broader Technological Freedoms
Buterin points out that there are several other technological freedoms that are just as important as the freedom to do things with crypto tokens. These include:
- Freedom and Privacy of Communication: This covers encrypted messaging and pseudonymity. Zero-knowledge proofs can protect pseudonymity while ensuring important claims about authenticity.
- Freedom and Privacy-Friendly Digital Identity: Blockchain applications can help with digital identity, but realistically, hashes, signatures, and zero-knowledge proofs are used more often.
- Freedom and Privacy of Thought: As AI becomes more integrated into our lives, the privacy of our thoughts will become increasingly important.
- High-Quality Access to Information: Technologies that help people form high-quality opinions about important topics are crucial. Buterin is optimistic about prediction markets and community notes.
Buterin emphasizes that these freedoms are foundational and should be considered when evaluating political candidates, not just their stance on cryptocurrency.
Crypto and Internationalism
Internationalism is another important aspect of the crypto movement. Buterin explains that the internet, and by extension, cryptocurrency, can help create a more equal-access and globalized digital society. Cryptocurrency has the potential to flatten the global economy by making it easier for people in different countries to interact economically.
However, Buterin notes that if a politician cares about “crypto” because it supports internationalism, they should also care about policies that show concern for the outside world. Many politicians fail in this regard.
For instance, Buterin shares that visa accessibility is a key concern for the crypto community. Many people could not attend important crypto events like EthCC due to difficulties in obtaining visas. Immigration laws directly impact the crypto industry’s international nature. Politicians who recognize this are more likely to support the broader goals of the crypto movement.
Evaluating Politicians’ Motivations
Buterin advises that if a politician is “pro-crypto,” it is important to understand their motivations. Looking at their views on related topics like encrypted messaging from five years ago can provide insights into their true stance. If their support for crypto is aligned with supporting corporations rather than individual freedoms, this could indicate how their views might change in the future.
Divergence Between Decentralization and Acceleration
Buterin also discusses the potential divergence between the goals of decentralization and acceleration. For example, in the context of AI, a decentralization-focused strategy prioritizes smaller models running on consumer hardware to avoid privacy issues and centralized control. An acceleration-focused strategy supports everything from small models to massive AI clusters.
In the crypto space, similar divergences could occur. Buterin suggests that exploring a politician’s underlying values can help predict which side they might prioritize if such a conflict arises.
Crypto-Friendly Authoritarians
Buterin warns that there is a particular style of being “crypto-friendly” that is common among authoritarian governments. He uses Russia as an example, where the government uses crypto to avoid restrictions but restricts its citizens from using it freely.
He cautions that if a politician is “pro-crypto” but is also power-seeking or supports authoritarian tendencies, their crypto advocacy could eventually be used to consolidate power. This is why it is important to evaluate a politician’s overall platform and outlook, not just their stance on crypto.
The Importance of Broader Values
Buterin stresses that the game of politics is more complicated than just “who wins the next election.” By publicly supporting “pro-crypto” candidates solely because they support crypto, people create an incentive for politicians to prioritize crypto over other important issues.
Instead, Buterin argues that it is more honorable to support politicians who align with the broader values of the cypherpunk movement. These values include freedom, privacy, and decentralization across various aspects of technology and society.
If a politician has a vision of how technology, politics, and the economy should evolve in the 21st century that aligns with these values, then they deserve support. But if they do not, it might be better to stay out of the political game entirely or find better forces to align with.
Conclusion
Vitalik Buterin’s main point is that people in the crypto space should not choose their political allegiances based solely on a politician’s stance on crypto. Instead, they should consider the broader values that brought them to the crypto movement in the first place. By doing so, they can support politicians who genuinely align with the ideals of freedom, privacy, and decentralization.
