Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, expressed in his latest article (Against choosing your political allegiances based on who is “pro-crypto”): Politicians “supporting cryptocurrency” does not mean “always staying friendly”, which shows that politicians want to The phenomenon of changing positions during elections. At the same time, I also hope that people can reflect on the original intention of supporting cryptocurrency.
Table of contents
ToggleAvoid choosing your political stance just because you support cryptocurrencies
Most supervision is reasonable, and the crypto only chooses politics with "encryption-friendliness"
Vitalik said that “cryptocurrency” has become an increasingly important topic in political policy over the past few years, and various jurisdictions are considering various ways to regulate related activities in the blockchain field. Examples include the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), the UK’s stablecoin regulatory efforts, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) legislative and enforcement attempts. Many of these bills make sense to him, although some worry that the government may take extreme measures, such as deeming nearly all tokens securities or banning self-custodial wallets. Against the backdrop of this fear, those within the cryptocurrency space are becoming increasingly politically active and choosing their political stances almost entirely based on whether politicians are tolerant and friendly to cryptocurrencies.
Vitalik: The political choice of pursuing profit in the crypto is risky
Vitalik said: “In this article, I argue against this trend, especially because I believe that making decisions in this way carries a high risk of straying from the values that you originally entered into the cryptocurrency field. Cryptocurrency is not just cryptocurrencies and areas. Blockchain. There is often an overemphasis on the centrality of “money” within the cryptocurrency space, with the freedom to hold and spend money (or tokens) being the most important political issue.”
The origins of cryptocurrency: cypherpunk
Vitalik takes us back to the original intentions of cryptocurrencies. He said that the original creation of cryptocurrency was a broader technological liberal trend-the cypherpunk movement, which advocates protecting and enhancing individual freedom through free and open technology.
Back in the 2000s, a major theme was opposition to restrictive copyright legislation pushed by corporate lobby groups. The main weapons of war at that time were torrent networks, encryption and Internet anonymization. An important lesson learned early on was the importance of decentralization. In one of his few public political statements, Satoshi Nakamoto explained: “You won’t find solutions to political problems in cryptography. However, we can win an important battle in the arms race and within a few years Get a new free territory."
The true value of cryptocurrencies
He believes that Bitcoin is seen as a means to extend this spirit to the field of online payments. Bitcoin is a very easy way to pay online and organize royalties to artists without relying on restrictive copyright laws. The way of thinking in this context is that freedom is important, decentralized networks are excellent at protecting freedom, and money is an important area where these networks can be applied, but only one of them.
Other aspects of technological freedom
He believes that in addition to cryptocurrency, technical freedoms such as free and private communication, digital identity, freedom and privacy of thought are equally important. These are aspects that will become increasingly important in the coming decades, as our activities will increasingly be mediated through AI interactions. High-quality access to information is equally important as are social technologies that help people form high-quality opinions in confrontational environments. These goals of technological freedom often impact areas beyond technology, such as equity and efficiency in the housing economy.
The current “pro-crypto” movement lacks thought
The current “pro-crypto” movement, at least as of today, does not have this mindset. If a politician supports your freely traded token but has not taken a position on the above issues, it is likely that their basic thought process in supporting a freely traded token is different from yours.
Internationalism and Cryptocurrency
Vitalik said: “I and many cypherpunks have always taken internationalism very seriously. Internationalism has always been a key blind spot of statist egalitarian politics: they adopt various restrictive economic policies to try to ‘protect domestic workers’, but often to the global disadvantage. There is little focus on inequality. A key liberating aspect of the Internet is that it theoretically does not differentiate between the richest and the poorest countries. Cryptocurrencies extend these ideals to the world of money and economic interaction.
Reflect on the real reasons for “supporting encryption”
Vitalik said that if you care about internationalism because of cryptocurrencies, you should also judge politicians by how concerned they and their policies are about the outside world. This can even be linked to the “crypto industry” itself. While attending EthCC, Vitalik received messages from many friends who were unable to come because it was not easy to obtain Schengen visas. The United States also scores poorly in this regard. The crypto industry is uniquely international, so immigration law is crypto law. Which politicians and countries realize this?
Politicians who are “pro-crypto” are not always friendly
He said that if you see a politician who is friendly to cryptocurrencies, look up their views on cryptocurrencies five years ago and what their views were on related topics five years ago. In particular, try to find a topic where "pro-liberty" is inconsistent with "pro-corporate"; the copyright wars of the 2000s are a good example.
If you like a politician, and not just because they support cryptocurrencies, then you should pay attention to their crypto stance. There is much more to the game of politics than just "who wins the next election."
The difference between decentralization and acceleration
Vitalik said that if there are differences in goals between decentralization and acceleration, how will people choose?
Last year, Vitalik conducted a series of polls (not many polls) asking people whether they value decentralization or acceleration in the context of AI, and the results showed a preference for the former. While regulation is often detrimental to both decentralization and acceleration, there can also be cases of divergence.
“Encryption support” for authoritarian governments
Vitalik believes that authoritarian governments’ “encryption support” has its own specific style and deserves vigilance. For example, modern Russia's encryption policy is very simple: when we use encryption, it helps avoid restrictions from others, which is good; when you use encryption, it makes it harder for us to restrict or monitor you, which is not OK
Is policy beef how we decide politics?
Are politicians supporting cryptocurrencies doing it for the right reasons? Do their technological and political-economic visions align with yours? If so, you should support them and make it clear that this is why you support them. If not, you should leave it alone or find a better force to ally with.
