Ethereum Founder Vitalik Buterin Warns of Voting ‘Pro-Crypto’ for Single Issue

TLDR

Vitalik Buterin cautions against choosing political allegiance based on a candidate's ‘pro-crypto' stance. He emphasized the importance of broad technological freedoms and fundamental values ​​that inspired the crypto movement. Buterin argues that a focus on ‘pro-crypto' risks undermining the broader values ​​of cypherpunk. He cautions against supporting politicians who are ‘pro-crypto' but can't demonstrate a commitment to globalization and broad freedoms. The blog post drew a mixed response from crypto industry figures, with some calling Buterin “politically naive.”

Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin has sparked debate in the cryptocurrency community with a recent blog post about not choosing a candidate's political allegiance based solely on their ‘pro-crypto' stance.

The post, titled “Rather than choosing your political allegiance based on being pro-crypto,” highlights the importance of considering broad technological freedoms and the fundamental values ​​that inspired the crypto movement in the first place.

Buterin argues that focusing on ‘pro-crypto' risks undermining the broader value that brought people into the crypto space. He suggests that the initial inspiration for crypto came from the cypherpunk movement, which advocated free and open technology to protect individual liberties.

This ethos, Buterin stresses, is broader than just cryptocurrency and blockchains, it includes issues of encrypted messaging, digital identity, and privacy.

The creator of Ethereum emphasizes the importance of globalization, a cause dear to many in the cypherpunk community.

He warns that supporting ‘pro-crito' politicians can be counterproductive if they fail to demonstrate a commitment to internationalism and broad freedoms.

Buterin shares personal stories from events like EthCC, where visa access issues prevented some attendees from attending, emphasizing that immigration law is critical to the global crypto community.

Buterin also warns against the ‘pro-crypto' stance common among authoritarian governments.

He cited Russia's dual approach of using crypto to evade foreign restrictions while maintaining strict controls on domestic use.

He warns that politicians who seek power or are willing to compromise with authoritarians may adopt similar tactics, ultimately undermining the freedoms that crypto aims to protect.

The blog post drew a wide response from crypto industry figures. Some, like Jake Chervinsky, Variant Fund's chief legal officer, acknowledged Buterin's “strong points,” but pointed out that some readers could misinterpret his message as an endorsement of a particular political party.

You make some strong points here. Too many people saw the headline as “Vote Biden!” And miss the rest.

That all in all, most of this seems too clever by half. Good crypto policy requires electing pro-crypto candidates. Political reality always trumps idealism.

— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) July 17, 2024

However, not all responses were positive. Messari CEO Ryan Selkis called Buterin “politically naive” and accused him of being “ideal, not practical.”

Selkis, a vocal supporter of former President Donald Trump, argued that Buterin's article could be seen as implicit support for what he calls an “anti-tech president.”

It's important to note that Vitalik's political opinions are meaningless to me, and should be to you if your primary concern is American politics.

He is Canadian and Russian.

I humbly recommend that he fix those governments first and stay out of American politics.

— Ryan Selkis (D/ACC) 🇺🇸 (@twobitidiot) July 17, 2024

The debate comes at a time when cryptocurrency is becoming an increasingly important topic in American politics.

Former President Trump, once a crypto skeptic, recently embraced the technology and is scheduled to speak at a Bitcoin conference in Nashville. This shift has led some in the crypto community to view the Republican Party as more crypto-friendly.

Buterin's post highlights the importance of looking beyond a surface-level ‘pro-crypto' stance and considering a politician's long-term views and broader stance on technological freedoms. He advises examining the attitudes of politicians over the years and considering how their positions might evolve.