Don’t disagree with your sentiment. One general problem I see in the counter-messaging to Warren’s bill/views (and others like it) is too much emphasis on the principles behind crypto, and not enough on the reality of what can be done to address the bill’s concerns.
Government tries to solve problems (real or imaginary) that it believes (rightly, wrongly, or duplicitously) the public is incapable of solving itself. I want to see more messaging and discussion that is literally as direct as possible—e.g. “How Bitcoin stops terrorist financing” or “Why crypto is a better alternative to eliminate terrorist financing than the government and big banks.” Even the Blockchain Association’s November 15 letter to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee was lukewarm—only stating that proposed regulations would be “counter productive” to national security interests with a citation to a single WSJ letter to the editor from a different crypto lobbyist that effectively said “blockchains are public, so terrorists don’t like using them.” True or not, it’s too abstract.
Legislators that barely know how to use google need to be persuaded by offensive messaging and education that is tangible, which means discussing and demonstrating the utility of solutions to the problem they’re confronting. It’s against these concrete backdrops that the more ethereal appeals to freedom, equality, etc., can be contextualized—and against which the government’s alternatives can be evaluated.
I think the place I start from is the belief that as an American, I don’t care what a politician thinks about bitcoin, it is my right to hold it, just as I do cash or property. So we don’t “owe” them anything in terms of WHY it should be”exist”
Bitcoin has so many great properties as a tool for our political leaders to understand if they wish. I for one would engage in that front (I’m more honest here on nostr, but depending on context I’d be more hospitable and open to conversation, if that makes sense?
But I see your point and think there are two different stories at play here
1) it’s my right, not yours (Senator) to take
2) here are some great things about bitcoin! Learn if you want. Or not.
I see where you’re coming from—but I think the problem is that too much gets lost in the gap between people’s inherent conception of rights and the reasons why those rights should or should not be infringed. Even if it’s the case nothing is owed to explain why a right should exist, there has to be an articulable reason why it shouldn’t be taken away if there’s a belief that doing so is necessary for some higher-order reason (e.g., national security).
My fear is that when lawmakers go into the chasm to learn about crypto, they leave without having anything concrete to assuage these higher-order concerns. E.g., if a politician goes in to learn about crypto with the belief it can be used to fund terrorism, but is willing to be persuaded otherwise, it is going to be tough to move their position when most of the readily-accessible knowledge base they can draw from is comprised of middling statements like “it’s not that widespread,” or “it’s not as bad as banking.”
I’m not saying they can’t also weigh those alongside the other positive benefits crypto can offer, but that those benefits are easier to dismiss or devalue in the absence of other positions that directly clash with the specific issue—especially one where the consequences under consideration (e.g. terrorism) are taken so seriously by those in government.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
