Tech Experts Counter-Lobby Congress Against Crypto Industry
Neither this post nor any other on cryptofal.com should be taken as financial advice. It is not.
Earlier this week, 26 figures from varying backgrounds in tech publicized a letter to members of Congress warning against a soft political approach to cryptocurrency, Web3, and blockchain technology. The signatories criticized the increased lobbying efforts of the crypto industry and the dangers that leaving it widely unchecked would have for “ordinary citizens.”
Their concern isn’t unwarranted as scams, crashes, fraud, and theft are common in this widely unregulated space. Contrary to what many may think, regulation is welcomed by many crypto platforms and Web3 companies as it would clear up the legal ambiguity that currently plagues the industry. Not only does this gray area make operations and growth difficult, but it also stifles the ability of the government to protect the ordinary citizens for whom these experts are so concerned.
Like any other industry looking to safeguard future development, lobbying for crypto has increased over the years. Since 2018, monetary engagement with Capitol Hill has quadrupled to reach an estimated $9 million by 2021. The irony is that big tech companies like Meta and IBM have also lobbied in favor of crypto-friendly policies, canceling out the narrative that tech is unfriendly to the digital asset community. Nevertheless, this letter has created a heated discussion between the two communities. In fact, this tech collective goes beyond cautionary advice and instead aims to discredit and minimize the potential of cryptocurrency, Web3, and most specifically blockchain technology.
These concerned technologists manage to poorly describe some flaws with crypto assets and blockchains. An even greater offense is that, as professionals with “deep expertise” in their respective fields, they fail to offer solutions on how the technology might be better harnessed and refined. This was a largely missed opportunity for constructive criticism and a more pragmatic approach to the issue. Instead, this collective calls crypto assets “unproven digital financial instruments” citing that they disagree that these “technologies represent a positive financial innovation” and will remain “unsuitable as a foundation for large-scale economic activity.” Technology takes time to grow and develop. The failure of a singular application is not enough of an indicator that the technology possesses “non-existent-uses.”
Despite all its intention, this letter read more like an offensive against an up-and-coming competitor. In the same way that DVDs won market popularity against LaserDisc despite LaserDisc's superiority, it’s easily observed how the more institutionalized option continues to shape the narrative. Web2 tech developers and professionals have seen the rise in crypto assets and blockchain technology, and not all are keen on allowing the narrative to shift in the direction of Web3. Rather than contribute, this group has chosen to block the path of progress, and in doing so, draw a line in the sand between crypto and tech.