The Breakdown - The Rise of the Crypto Single-Issue Voter

Episode Date: May 14, 2024

Last week former President Trump came out as the pro-crypto candidate. The move has not only put crypto on the national political stage, but generated significant conversation about the rationale of being a single-issue voter. Today's Show Brought To You By Ledger - 5% to Bitcoin Developers When You Buy https://shop.ledger.com/pages/bitcoin-hardware-wallet Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/nathanielwhittemorecrypto Subscribe to the newsletter: https://breakdown.beehiiv.com/ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownNLW

Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, NLW. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin, and the Big Picture Power Shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Monday, May 13th, and today we are talking about crypto's continued political conversation. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying the breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on the Breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit.ly slash breakdown pod. Well, friends, you know the story of last week.

Last Wednesday, former President Donald Trump firmly positioned himself as the pro-Crypto candidate for this election cycle. While Trump's speech was low on policy specifics, the main point, in his words, was, The Democrats are very much against it. If you're in favor of crypto, you better vote for Trump. In the immediate aftermath,

it was very difficult to find a single take pushing back on this point. It wasn't so much that everyone in crypto was excited to throw their lot in with Trump. It was more a clear recognition that this election is between a presidential candidate who is fine with it, and another who is willing to leverage the full force of the U.S. government to snuff out the industry entirely. That position was, of course, reinforced by the threat of a

presidential veto delivered that same day. Over the weekend, a huge amount of ink was spilled across the op-ed pages, both in industry publications and the mainstream press. Easily the most controversial was an op-ed that appeared in Blockworks, who is, of course, now the publisher of the breakdown. The article's title was, only a fool would vote on crypto alone, and the article framed single-issue crypto voting as prioritizing, quote, financial interest over broader societal and ethical concerns. The thesis was that there are a host of other issues facing voters this election, particularly around women's rights. Now, what I'm not going to deal with here is any of the controversy around Blockworks actually printing this piece. I think it's insane that

that would be controversial. And any free speech advocate should be embarrassed if they're upset about it. Blockworks co-founder Jason Yanowitz wrote a long explanation for why the company decided to publish the article, the short version of which was that he said that they try to advance the conversation about crypto by covering all angles of it. Keith Grossman, who spent several years as president of Time magazine, summarized why this type of discourse is important, saying, The best aspect of opinion journalism, in my opinion, is to provide readers the opportunity to consider new perspectives or reaffirm a current view on a topic. Whether you agreed with this current piece or not, please be thankful that we are in a country that provides freedom of speech and the ability to respond if you do not agree.

And by the way, Ryan Selkiss, who appeared with Trump last week, and who seemed to be one of the intended targets of the op-ed also made this same point, and is also being given a chance to write his own op-ed response that will once again be published by Blockworks. So, like I said, this is what I would say even if they hadn't just bought the breakdown, but we should be cheering, not maligning, the publishing of various opinions. Plus, this is an important topic, and the fact that we're talking about it now is better than it was two weeks ago when we weren't, which once again was the point of Selkiss trying to get everyone to actually be willing to use the word Trump, rather than just talking about not Biden.

So what we're going to do today is talk about this idea of the crypto industry getting on board with the idea of single issue voting this election. But before we do, it's worth noting that although this Blockworks published piece was the most controversial, it was definitely by no means the only one. Multiple articles took the position that Trump was simply making a cynical political calculation to get on side with the crypto industry. A major point that some made was that we have no idea what a Trump crypto policy would actually look like. Some also made the point that with the polarization on the issue between the two parties, the specifics of a Trump policy don't matter at all. The industry is stuck in the position of choosing to vote for a completely unknown agenda

because the current one is so unworkable. To the extent that you're looking at some of the most interesting parts of this, at least from a metanarrative perspective, it's that the Trump crypto pivot is not just something that we are discussing in this industry, but is being covered by the mainstream media as well. Politico published an article on Friday entitled, Crypto is Trump's new weapon against Biden. The article contained more than a few indications of how the Democrat establishment

currently views crypto. It stated that the Trump pivot left some Democrats feeling uneasy. However, it noted that key Democrats, quote, remain at odds over whether to grant the industry legitimacy after a series of scandals. Politico cited Pew Research polling from April of last year, which found that three quarters of Americans felt that crypto trading was not reliable or safe. More recent polling conducted by the industry has suggested that voters are no longer that negative on crypto. However, it's entirely possible that this old polling has anchored the Democratic stance on crypto, with newer polling being dismissed as biased by the industry.

Politico also warned that crypto becoming a partisan issue was dangerous. The article noted Democrat Wiley Nichols' tweet, which asserted, quote, we cannot hand this issue to Republicans. They also pointed out that lobbyists have been working hard for years to avoid this outcome. Cody Carbone, the chief policy officer at the Chamber of Digital Commerce said, I don't want this to become a partisan issue. I think this presents an opportunity for Democrats to start to really have an introspective look and educate themselves on the benefits of digital assets. At the moment, though, it doesn't appear as though this introspection will arrive before the election.

Just prior to Trump's speech, Democrats doubled down on their anti-crypto stance in a donation letter. The email to supporters said that Trump was meeting with people suckered into paying as much as $10,000 for simple digital images of him. Their words. They derided Trump for holding the NFT dinner instead of campaigning during his midweek break from court hearings. Now, by the way, there is a whole political strategy analysis that other people who are much more qualified will do, but it's hard to not look at this is pretty emblematic of the issues with the Democrats' current stance.

Last week's NFT dinner was one of the single most impactful campaign events Trump has held the date, particularly in terms of fundraising. videos from the event went viral immediately, and instead of treating this as a serious political shift, the Democrats wrote it off as a complete waste of time to court the crypto vote, meanwhile using it as a chance for them to further try to associate crypto with the old money that has been their boogeyman for so long. I said last week that regardless of what you think about the issues, there is one thing that is undeniable, and that is that crypto is now firmly an actual campaign issue for this election cycle.

That's why the political article matters. It's a publication that informs the agenda across Washington every single morning. And what's more, by conceding this issue to Trump, Democrats have made this a wedge issue and decided they don't need the crypto vote. But let's go back to this main question. Crypto single-issue voting. So on the side of the op-ed by Molly Zuckerman from Blockworks, to the extent that her big issue is there's lots of things that are deserving of your consideration, not just crypto, one very specific point is around women's issues. Austin Campbell, who pushed back very fiercely on the idea that you shouldn't vote on crypto as a single-issue voter, still made the point

that it's important for Molly to have written this piece and that she's not the only one struggling with this issue. Austin writes a friend who will remain anonymous, who is a New York Democrat like me, saw the debate raging, read Molly's op-ed, and read my thread and sent me this. Austin, if I'm very pro-crypto but also very pro-choice and generally don't like the Republicans, what am I supposed to do in this election? Hello, breakers. Today's episode is sponsored by Ledger. As another cycle ramps up, it's another chance to think about your Bitcoin customer. best practices, and of course, to help all the new folks do the same.

Ledger is the global platform for securing Bitcoin and other crypto. Ledger combines both hardware wallets and the Ledger Live app to offer the best way to buy, sell, swap, and stake without sacrificing on security or self-custody. Ledger features cutting-edge technology in the form of a certified secure chip and a proprietary operating system, but also brings ease of use. This makes Ledger a safe and secure way to manage your digital assets without all the stress. Check out the link to the Bitcoin Ledger Nano in the show notes. 5% of all sales of the Bitcoin Ledger Nano go to support Bitcoin development. Thanks once again to Ledger for supporting the breakdown.

Now, most of the response which we'll be covering here is on the flip side of it and why it is worthy of thinking about this as a single issue voter. But I wanted to make sure that we have that piece of this discourse, that there are many people for whom this is a huge challenge, even if they understand the crypto side, as a central part of this discussion. Now, first, let's talk about the idea of crypto as partisan. Laura Shin writes, I know certain factions in the Biden administration have made it seem like crypto is a political issue.

But a lot of Dems are pro-crypto and have crossed party lines multiple times, including just this week to express their support for crypto. In my opinion, it's not a good idea for the industry to only support one side. If that side doesn't win, things could get even worse for crypto. It seems the better strategy is to not stoop to the level of those who would make it a political issue, but instead court politicians on both sides of the aisle,

so you have supporters no matter which side is in power. my two cents. She continued the next day, thinking more about my tweet, here's another way to put it. Gensler and Warren are trying to politicize crypto. If the industry falls into the trap and takes the bait and does the same, then game over, they win. If crypto becomes politicized, then automatically 40% plus of Americans will be against it without ever really learning about it. In my opinion, if the industry focuses on education and explaining what crypto is and what it isn't, there shouldn't be a political issue. Then as the tech becomes more developed and used, there will gradually be more acceptance and adoption without having to overcome the hurdle of it having

been politicized. If you have been a long-time listener of this show, you know that I have pointed out numerous times, frequently even, for how long crypto was able to avoid the worst of our partisanship. Even now, as Donald Trump embraces it, there were still 21 Democrats who were willing to cross the aisle to vote against SAB 121 and their SEC. There are still Democrats who are unwilling to concede this issue, which basically doesn't happen when Trump gets on board with something. There are also plenty of reasons, as I've covered in numerous shows in the past that you can go look up, about why progressives would be interested in and have a reason to care about Bitcoin and crypto. However, just because it has been for a long time less partisan in practice than some other issues

does not mean it is not political or that it ever has been not political. Nick Carter wrote, I'd love to live in a fantasy blank slate world many of you dwell in where new technologies have no partisan mapping and politicians just choose positions tabularosa, but that's not our world. Crypto is inherently political and has always been. To the extent leftism relies on the politicization of finance, crypto will be a rightist technology, definitionally. It is delusional to meekly in tone that crypto is nonpartisan and hope for the best. This will not be persuasives to leftists whose agenda is threatened by open finance. It is suicidal not to align yourself with the faction that

actively supports your cause. Now, we could get into a whole conversation about the extent to which crypto brings up underlying battles for the soul of different parties. I think Nick's particular phrasing here to the extent leftism relies on the politicization of finance is correct insofar as it acknowledges that there is nothing a priori that requires leftism to do that, and there is nothing a priority that requires progressives to go along with that, and that to the extent that there are progressives who care about crypto, part of the answer may be in trying to change their parties take on these issues more broadly, but the point that crypto is inherently political and has always been is one that's worth meditating on. However, another point wasn't just about the inherent

partisanship of crypto and the inherent politicality of crypto, but about the fact that, well, to put it bluntly, they started it. Bulli Esquire writes, I've said it before, but it bears repeating. If a group of people publicly says that they find your way of living to be reprehensible and that they are going to destroy it, you should take them at their word. In another tweet, he said, Stop trying to turn crypto into a political issue. My brother in Christ, we didn't make crypto-partisan. The party actively trying to destroy crypto made crypto-partisan. Austin Campbell upon reading that initial op-ed said, if four more years of the Biden administration means I will be leaving the country, likely renouncing my citizenship and becoming an active advisor to companies and nations who are

fully intending to use blockchains to seize control of the financial rails from the United States, you're saying I still should put that aside and not vote on that basis? I'm not sure what a more relevant single-issue voter scenario could be than one having a fork in the road between living in the U.S. and not just leaving but likely a lifetime of work to try to destroy it. I think this is the point of people like Ryan Salkis. If you support a party that would force you into a situation like that, what are we even doing here? I certainly wish this was not the situation we were in. But the Biden administration can stop their illegal and exceptionally stupid losing assault on the future at any point in time.

I can't make them stop. I can only vote, both at the ballot box and ultimately, if necessary, with my feet. And I think it's worth noting here that basically no one who is seriously talking about this is talking about voting for Trump as a single-issue voter because they want to make their bags bigger. Certainly, I'm sure there are people out there who have that opinion, but the debate isn't that. The debate is about exactly what Austin is talking about here. It's about an existential issue. Now, the one other point of view that was represented that's worth discussing is the belief that this is a vote loser.

Hayden Adams from Uniswop said, Hillary campaigning in red states instead of swing states level miscalculation from Biden camp thinking crypto will be irrelevant in the 2024 election and letting the SEC and war wage total war both in terms of voters and money. Republicans smell blood in the water and are turning hard towards crypto. Not much time for Biden to save it. And when close to him or Dem leadership should be expressing how serious this is and pushing for immediate reversal on his approach to crypto.

Now, that is the perfect setup to what we're going to discuss tomorrow. We got a bipartisan letter to the DOJ. We have a market structure bill advancing. There is absolutely movement in this space. And some are promising more. Ryan Selkis again wrote, Regardless of whether you love or hate Trump, I hope you will appreciate the risk Mahalo Balik and I took in publicly

and definitively supporting his candidacy last week. It has panicked the White House and Senate leadership's tech allies. That is great for crypto. He then followed that up with, there needs to be a stronger word than nuclear for what's going to happen this week to Liz Warren's army. So that is where we are this week. There are great debates around crypto as a single issue and what other issues should be contending with it. There is fierce political discussion within this community at a time that it matters. That discussion seems to be translating into action in Washington. Frankly, no matter who you want to see as president, what's happening in crypto right now is pretty much the best of American democracy.

incarnate. So I'm certainly excited to see how the rest of this week, to say nothing of the rest of this year, plays out. Like I said, we'll be back with some additional coverage on this tomorrow and throughout the week. For now, though, that is going to do it for today's breakdown. Big thank you to my sponsor for today's show. Check out the Ledger Bitcoin Orange Nano. 5% of sales will go to support Bitcoin Development. Until next time, be safe and take care of each other. Peace.