Vitalik Buterin, one of the most prominent figures in the cryptocurrency world and the founder of Ethereum, addressed important topics today. Recently, the main focus has been on the impact of cryptocurrency on politics. As we approach the November elections, we have long predicted such a scenario. And it happened. So why is Buterin opposed to this?
Cryptocurrencies and Politics
Over the years, cryptocurrency has become a more significant factor in politics. The regulatory steps taken by governments regarding crypto have played a major role in this. The Crypto Asset Markets regulation (MiCA) in the EU, stablecoin initiatives in the UK, and the SEC disputes in the US have made cryptocurrencies a more prominent topic among politicians worldwide. At this point, Vitalik says:
“In my opinion, while many of these legislative proposals are reasonable, there are concerns about governments classifying almost all coins as securities or banning decentralized wallets. Following these fears, there is increasing pressure to be more politically active in the crypto space and to prefer political parties and candidates almost entirely based on whether they are willing to be tolerant and friendly towards ‘crypto.’”
Trump has been the best at using this recently. He will soon speak at a Bitcoin conference and has been making supportive statements about cryptocurrencies for weeks. However, Vitalik considers this to be a betrayal.
“I oppose this trend and argue that making decisions in this way risks contradicting the values that brought you into the crypto space in the first place.”
Don’t Fall into the Trap
Vitalik elaborates on the liberating spirit of Bitcoin and crypto and the risk that politicians’ views (even if they appear crypto-friendly) may change over time. He gives examples from the past and present of politicians who defended the right to encrypted messaging:
“If you see a politician being crypto-friendly, one thing you can do is look at their views on crypto five years ago. Similarly, look at their views on related topics like encrypted messaging five years ago. Try to find a topic where ‘supporting freedom’ is not aligned with ‘supporting companies’; the copyright wars of the 2000s are a good example of this. This can be a good guide to what kind of changes might occur in their views five years later.”
After writing about the protection of freedoms and respect for a certain degree of privacy, Vitalik wrote:
“If a politician supports your freedom to trade coins but has said nothing about the above topics, then the fundamental thought process that leads them to support coin trading freedom is very different from mine (and probably yours). This means they are likely to reach different conclusions on issues you care about in the future.”
Vitalik is probably aware that most crypto investors do not care about the things he writes extensively about. However, he is trying to convey something to the few people who believe in the philosophy he embraces. For years, crypto has been seen only as a field where you can make dozens of times the profit, and almost all investors do not care about the philosophy behind it. Let’s give an example. Michael Saylor defines himself as the biggest BTC maximalist and makes massive propaganda in this area. Coinbase and others do the same. Saylor was a crypto enemy a few years ago, but he bought billions of dollars worth of BTC because he believed he could do something similar to what he did during the DOTCOM bubble, unofficially turning his company into a proxy BTC ETF. He will probably not care about this field after making enough money.
