The unpredictable nature of political outcomes is more art than science, particularly at the national level. Election results are influenced by countless factors, including policy stances and campaign strategies. While there’s never one single deciding issue, some themes tend to rise to the surface.
My colleague Ruy Teixeira has persuasively identified four cultural and policy issues that contributed to the progressive left’s loss to Donald Trump in the recent election. Building on that analysis, I’d like to highlight one electoral margin that I believe played a significant role: the Democrats’ perceived negative attitude toward cryptocurrency.
The story begins with a series of events (though the absolute truth remains unclear). In what could be characterized as a political trade, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is said to have secured the ability to appoint key figures to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in exchange for stepping back from her presidential aspirations in 2020 or endorsing Joe Biden a month later. It’s no secret that Warren favored Gary Gensler and Rohit Chopra for these influential positions. As I’ve noted before, Biden seemed to abandon some centrist principles by giving authority over these agencies to ideologically aligned individuals on the left.
Over the subsequent years, Gensler and Warren jointly made enemies of the cryptocurrency industry and its wider community. This ultimately helped to catalyze partisanship within the crypto world, which had previously displayed more libertarian and less Republican leanings. Cryptocurrency, aiming to introduce new forms of money, understandably attracted a following. This subsequently began to translate into the political arena.
Fairshake, the largest crypto-aligned super PAC, is an example of this. It raised over $200 million and spent $170 million during the 2024 election cycle. Trump saw an opportunity, attending a major crypto conference where he made promises to a captivated audience. He also accepted cryptocurrency-based campaign donations. The Harris campaign made an attempt to present a softer stance toward crypto when compared to the Biden administration, Warren, and Gensler, yet it was too late. The crypto community had chosen their side, firmly supporting Trump. People who were otherwise inclined to Trump’s style of advocacy became even more vocal. Their gamble on Trump – which Ben Schiller of CoinDesk warned against just before the election – ultimately paid off.
The immediate consequence was the rise of Bitcoin to over $75,000 in the 24 hours following the election. It is not a stretch to predict a friendlier crypto policy environment over the next four years.
This story isn’t limited to the presidential election. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), a known crypto skeptic aligned with Warren, faced an opponent backed by crypto support in the form of cryptophile Bernie Moreno, who helped oust Brown in an effort that resulted in the Senate moving toward Republican control. While some in the crypto community have chosen the Republican party, the overall landscape isn’t entirely one-sided: Fairshake spending in Nevada’s Fourth District supported a Democrat, incumbent Representative Steven Horsford, who has shown friendliness toward crypto. Although the cryptocurrency community is diverse, certain principles are important such as “Not your keys, not your coins” and “The best time to get into crypto is yesterday. The second-best time is today.”
My hope is that the faction that lost the recent election will engage in some deep introspection to improve its chances in future campaigns. The current political climate, heavily influenced by new media and challenges in institutional trust, requires strong competition. Democrats, in addition to considering Teixeira’s advice on wider political and cultural issues, might begin to cease their negative actions against the crypto community within their ranks. The blockchain data protocol, through the use of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, fosters non-governmental, non-corporate community administration on a global scale. Despite the crypto community’s apparent allegiances, those on the left and within the Democratic party should consider that blockchain and new forms of money and finance are a good thing.
Crypto poses a threat on the already entrenched oligopolistic industry in which large fortunes end up with wealthy and well-connected individuals. It is therefore ironic that Warren’s opposition to crypto seems to preserve the interests of titans controlling money and finance. This highlights the truth behind the adage: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Building partnerships with the crypto community may take some effort. However, it’s a valuable path of unity. When the goal is better policy alongside better politics, supporting crypto and guiding it toward advancement may improve electoral prospects.
