Opinion: Trump, heavily backed by crypto voters, may betray the industry

Original Title: Crypto's Big Trump Gamble

Original Author: Ben Schiller, CoinDesk

Translation: Mensh, ChainCatcher

Editor: Nianqing, ChainCatcher

This year, the crypto industry finally has its "friend," and his name is Donald Trump. For years, the industry has been searching for a political spokesperson, someone who can liberate its ideas and bring them to a wider audience. Now, that person is Trump.

He stood on the stage of the Nashville Bitcoin Conference, expressing how much he loves people in the crypto industry. He announced the establishment of a Bitcoin strategic reserve. He promised to release Ross Ulbricht. He handed out hamburgers at PubKey in New York. He even launched his own DeFi project—World Liberty Financial—and developed an internal management model (what better way to show his loyalty to cryptocurrency?).

Trump said what cryptocurrency wanted to hear and did what cryptocurrency wanted to do, attracting millions of dollars in donations. The loudmouths rallied for him, while culture warriors expressed their hatred in the performance. He occupied the political space that the Biden administration and the Harris campaign could have claimed if they weren't so submissive to the Warren wing. He was right about everything because Trump always says what people want him to say. He fits the crypto party's goals perfectly, 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 an entirely opposite view on cryptocurrency if it served his interests, and he has already done so. I am very concerned about cryptocurrency's embrace of Trump because I find it hard to believe that Trump aligns with the principles that attracted me to cryptocurrency.

So, what are the three reasons we should be wary as an industry?

Trump May Not Deliver on His Promises

Many White House officials during Trump's first term spoke 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’s what a former Trump White House official said this morning:

John Mitnick stated: Trump is reckless, irritable, vengeful, narcissistic, and disrespects 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 doesn't care about you and your family as he claims; he only cares about himself.

Seriously, shouldn't this be a cause for concern? Isn't it strange to ally the crypto movement with an unreliable person? 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 cryptocurrency personally to become a politician for cryptocurrency. Harris and her team have occasionally engaged with cryptocurrency over the past few months, indicating they might play around the issue. This summer, Trump made it clear to participants in the cryptocurrency dance that he would not deal with Democrats. Why?

Because Trump must be that person: he will not share this issue with Democrats. That’s how it was in Nashville. Elon Musk was expected to have a conversation with Trump at the Bitcoin Conference. However, according to an insider and CoinDesk's tracking of Musk's private jet, he turned around and left when Trump was unwilling to share the stage with him. Trump needs to be that person.

It is certain that Democrats have abandoned cryptocurrency themselves. This started 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 embraced it as part of their grid flexibility plans. 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 Democrats really began to seriously support cryptocurrency?

Alienating Outsiders

In seeking power and relevance, cryptocurrency has allied with the Republican Party. It doesn’t often say so openly, but it has done so. The people managing its campaign teams are all Republicans. Most of the lower-tier candidates it favors are Republicans. When organizations like Stand With Crypto urge people to vote, you know they won’t support 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’s former Messari CEO Ryan Selkis discussing his feelings about today’s liberal white women.

It’s a free country, and Selkis can say whatever he wants. He might even think that saying it is brave. But seriously, does this benefit cryptocurrency? Does such language align with the goal of making cryptocurrency mainstream? Wouldn't liberal white women, along with other groups that Ryan has been defaming around the clock for the past six months, be put off? Would they not think that cryptocurrency is made up of bad actors like Selkis? If you want to build a broad crypto movement, you certainly don’t want to alienate women.

Cryptocurrency Will Be Associated with Policies Unrelated to Cryptocurrency

Earlier this year, when I first heard the term "single-issue voter" associated with cryptocurrency, I immediately thought "BS." How can you support a candidate or party on a single issue? Electoral politics doesn’t work that way. When you support someone like Trump, you automatically support a wide range of policies.

Thus, when crypto offers Trump $10 million to reinterpret the "Howey Test," it is also supporting (in no particular order, just to name a few of Trump’s policies) a "peace agreement" on Ukraine (a.k.a. surrender), mass deportations, and opposition to abortion and transgender rights. Is this really the outcome that cryptocurrency wants from a cultural and social perspective?

Caution is the mother of safety. The Biden administration and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's opposition to cryptocurrency over the past three years has been detrimental to the crypto industry, which must respond. However, if this election aligns with a person named Trump, it could bring a whole new set of different and currently unforeseen harms.