Not all groups have political representation. The democratic system is extremely imperfect in this regard. In most cases, the citizen is forced to choose the lesser of the two evils, because no one defends his particular interests. So, an approximation is sought. In the elections, what we actually get is the victory of the largest minority coalition. This crisis of representativeness is largely responsible for our political discontent. The antipolitical is, at bottom, a feeling of disarticulation on the part of the alienated individual. The crypto community integrates with many of these unrepresented. But we are not a political force, because we are not very organized. We need organization and visibility. We are too anarchist and different to be able to create a unitary bloc. It is time to change?
Obviously this community needs a better lobby. We have a serious Public Relations problem. To become a political force we need a common agenda. Social networks are living proof of our fragmentation as a social and political body. Whatever one writes, a member of the community always comes up refuting that idea violently. I am not referring to the healthy debate that should exist in every group. I am referring to an opposition charged with aggressiveness. “You know nothing”. “You do not understand anything”. “You’re an Idiot”. We can’t even agree on a common definition for Bitcoin. The Bitcoin foundation does not represent anyone. And mistrust in the other is very high.
Read on: Does Inflation Threaten Economic Recovery? What does it mean for the price of Bitcoin?
American culture is essentially individualistic. The individual is more important than the group. That conflicts with Latin, Asian, and Southern European cultures. If we go to history, the origins of this individualism could be attributed to the Protestant Reformation. Capitalism, independent thought, and liberal democracy are very close to the Anglo-Saxon world. Of course, we must also include the entire North of Europe. But it could be said that the modern world owes much to Protestant England. The English settlers on the New Continent built a country on the values of an unusual individualism. Of the individualistic, the most individualistic. So we have the Jeffersonian democracy that places the self-sufficient farmer as its great hero.
In rural America, there is still much of this spirit of extreme autonomy inherited from the pioneers. The relationship with God is personal. My property is my kingdom. My defense is my weapons. And my money is safe only in my hands. I do not need anyone. It does not depend on anyone. And any limit to my personal freedom is oppression. Why pay taxes? Why abide by the laws of a man-made institution? There is only God, my property, my job and my family. It is a thought that places all its trust in the individual and distrusts everything else.
Anti-statism and economic conservatism is a long-standing tradition in the United States. In many ways, it has lost representation with the two-party system. Over time, the parties concentrated on the political center. The battle began to turn in the social field in the eternal debate between the religious and the vigilantes of the social. But in everything else, both parties are very similar. On the way, many of the Jeffersonian values were left unrepresented.
Read on: Is it a good idea to re-invest in “meme coins”?
Libertarians are too socially liberal to sympathize with Republicans too much, but too individualistic and anti-statist to sympathize with Democrats too much. Where are the libertarians? Interestingly, they tend to come to fruition quite a bit in two places: In Silicon Valley and on Wall Street. The libertarian tends to be educated and capable. Young professionals and capitalists. Due to their individualistic tendencies, they are not very given to organize themselves in a formal way. This implies that it is a dispersed and incoherent movement. Regarding the vote, some vote for the Republicans. Others by the Democrats. Others for libertarians. And others vote for the candidate and not for the party.
However, Bitcoin was born in the United States under the influence of cypherpunks (libertarians with a computer). The crypto community has had its representatives in the past. But I am afraid we have suffered from an excessive wealth of eccentrics. Roger Ver, John McAfee, Max Keizer, Andreas Antonopoulos, etc. For these people, the encounter with Bitcoin meant a kind of mystical-religious experience and they began their mission of evangelization individually. They embraced the old libertarian narrative and added strong technological optimism because of the digital code. Thanks to social media, a postmodern tribe of young converts is formed. What could be called the early church. A group of anarchists, programmers, and libertarians rekindled in fury due to the handling of the 2008 crisis.
In recent years, speculators, retail investors, crypto companies, venture capitalists, family offices, S&P 500 companies and institutional capital have joined. The latter group forms a much more pragmatic lot than the old guard crypto enthusiasts. Here the financial interest is much more private than the ideological one. This great diversity makes it very difficult to create a cohesive political pole. Nevertheless, the union of a highly diverse group is possible in the presence of a common enemy. In this case, the possibility of poor regulation can bring us together.
Read on: Bitcoin: Is It Time To Invest Or Is It Too Late?
The claim to tax cryptocurrencies in the context of Biden’s infrastructure law created an informal coalition of new representatives from the crypto community: Ashton Kutcher, Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, Cathie Wood, Mike Novogratz, Michael Saylor. What we have is a coalition loaded with pragmatism and credibility from Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Hollywood. Of course I personally have reservations with some of these individuals. But It must be recognized that today we have a better representation. Without a doubt, this new crypto representative can lobby us better than a Roger Ver or a Max Keizer.
The youtuber or tweeter promoting radical ideas to gain more followers or sell you a course is not a solution. Radicalism sells, but the bottom line is a fantasy. Sooner or later, radicalism is counterproductive. It does not work. Put on a great show. But it is not sustainable. It is very difficult for a movement as diverse, global and anarchic as the crypto community to acquire real political force. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to get some influence with better representation. In fact, it is extremely important that the community have a voice in its own regulation. Like it or not, that requires a certain organization. Some figure to lobby for us. We cannot make the mistake of confusing freedom for chaos. Certainly it is possible to work together and at the same time be free.