Original author: shushu

Ethereum gas dropped to 3 gwei, and the market seemed quieter than a bear market. But just this past Mother's Day weekend, the English crypto community was in a heated discussion because of an article.

What the Blockworks column talks about

On May 11, Molly Jane Zuckerman, a writer for crypto media Blockworks, published a column titled “Only Fools Vote for Cryptocurrency” with the subtitle “Americans should not put their selfish economic interests above broader social and moral issues.”

The main point of the article is that presidential candidates from both parties in the United States are trying to use the cryptocurrency industry to gain money and votes, and that cryptocurrency is not a major factor in the election. It questions whether cryptocurrency is really so important to individuals and whether it is worth sacrificing attention to other moral and social issues for cryptocurrency.

Molly Jane believes that the politicization of cryptocurrency support has led some candidates to use cryptocurrencies to attract supporters during their campaigns, even if these candidates do not understand cryptocurrency or actually support it.

Molly also stated on her social media account that "Crypto Twitter has been particularly bad this week, expressing support simply because of politicians who support cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is not enough to sacrifice your principles - voting for cryptocurrency should not come at the expense of your conscience." She added, "If you are only considering voting for cryptocurrency, I suggest you think again."

After this article, which was written in a sharp style and had views that were not liked by everyone, fermented on Twitter, Messari CEO Ryan Selkis came out to say that the article was directed at him and that he would respond next week.

Ryan said he saw a lot of provocative content from Molly and Blockworks in the column, but he hopes people will stop and not bully Molly for sharing her opinions.

Ryan said this because he publicly stated last week that he must help Trump in the presidential election in November this year. "All in." On the same day, Ryan also attended a private dinner hosted by Trump in Florida, where Trump said, "If you support cryptocurrency, you'd better vote for Trump."

Ryan later tweeted, “President Trump spoke highly of cryptocurrencies and invited me and @MihailoBjelic (Polygon founder) to the stage to say a few words. Fight for crypto. Support President Trump.”

Let’s go back to Molly’s article, where she writes that some die-hard crypto evangelists currently believe that “voting for crypto” means voting for a Republican president, and any other decision will lead to the demise of the cryptocurrency industry in the United States. “This fear (whether real or not) has led some major figures in Web3 to push crypto supporters to become single-issue voters. Their goal is clear - to select 2024 candidates based solely on their crypto stance.”

Single-factor voters are people who vote based on a candidate's position on a single public policy issue. In Molly's opinion, many voters only consider the candidate's attitude towards cryptocurrency and ignore the candidate's other political positions, believing that this is putting their own self-interest above broader social and moral issues. This may be the reason why Ryan thinks Molly's article is directed at him.

On May 13, Yano, the founder of Blockworks, responded to Molly's column and the discussion it sparked. Yano said that Blockworks is neither progressive nor conservative, but only provides a place for people with opinions to express their opinions and share their attitudes towards debate. He said, "Blockworks is for those who want to have difficult conversations, want to hear the views of both sides of the debate, want to understand the facts, and then decide their own position on the topic."

Although Yano's response was very calm and restrained, there was extensive debate in the community about Molly's article and the impact of the current US election on cryptocurrencies.

Is cryptocurrency related to politics? What does the community think?

The SEC's relentless pressure and the Biden administration's anti-crypto measures have made the crypto community nervous. "This crypto news site just destroyed their business with an article. Who thought it was a good idea to call your audience 'fools' and 'selfish'?" One reader directly asked, is this "encouraging readers to vote against cryptocurrencies?" Obviously, this article by Blockworks does not fit in with the current mainstream public opinion.

Mert Mumtaz, CEO of Solana ecosystem development platform Helius, said: "This is one of the most short-sighted works I have ever seen. Whether you like it or not, cryptocurrency is political. Freedom of transaction, smaller national scope, digital ownership, new forms of finance - very important and political. It's frustrating that people in our industry don't really believe in this mission - if you don't believe it, you shouldn't be here."

In response to Molly's single-factor voters, Mert reiterated his point of view, saying that "the problem with cryptocurrency is that it is not a 'single-factor' vote, just like saying that mathematics or the Internet are single-issue votes. Cryptocurrency is tied to economic policy, freedom, national scope, entrepreneurship, business, ownership, privacy, and innovation."

There are also some representative views, including that the reason for readers' negative reactions is more due to the condescending tone of the article. Molly believes that the motivation of American voters is pure greed, "but most of us are motivated by ideology, advocating transparency, merit, fairness, resistance to censorship (free speech), and innovation."

“While I may not agree with the Blockworks op-ed (and tone), I appreciate the publication for empowering people to voice diverse opinions within the organization. Whether you agree or disagree, I feel like it actually makes me trust them more.”

The debate over whether cryptocurrencies are politically relevant continues.

Nic Carter, the father of smart contracts and co-founder of Castle Island Ventures, also posted, “I’d love to live in the fantasy world that many of you live in, where new technologies are free of partisanship and politicians simply choose blank slate positions, but that’s not our world.

Cryptocurrency is inherently political and always has been; if the left relies on the politicization of finance, then crypto is by definition a right-wing technology. It is delusional to meekly suggest that crypto is non-partisan and hope for the best. This is unpersuasive to those on the left whose agenda is threatened by open finance.

It would be suicidal not to ally with a faction that actively supports your cause."

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams also posted on social media this morning that “Hillary’s campaign in red states instead of swing states was a serious miscalculation by the Biden camp. They believed that cryptocurrencies would not be important in the 2024 election and allowed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren to engage in an all-out war - both in terms of voters and funds.

Republicans caught wind of this and began to strongly support cryptocurrencies.

Biden has very little time to save the situation. Anyone close to him or the Democratic leadership should express how serious this is and urge an immediate reversal of his stance on crypto (openly support/plan to restrict SEC + Warren).”

Laura Shin, founder of the crypto media Unchained, has previously expressed her political attitude, believing that certain factions in the Biden administration have made cryptocurrency look like a political issue. But many Democrats are cryptocurrency supporters and have repeatedly crossed party lines to express their support for cryptocurrency.

“It seems to me that it’s not a good idea for the crypto industry to only support one side. If that side doesn’t win, things could get worse for cryptocurrencies. It seems like the better strategy is to not stoop to those who see it as a political issue, but to court politicians from both parties so that you have supporters no matter which side is in power.”

Original link