9 ms·

Crypto Industry Eclipses Defense, Big Pharma in US Political Giving

92 points by keewee7 4y ago

est31 4y ago
So we end up with crypto bribing the people with the guns. Turns out they are powerful after all. Who could have guessed. But governments won't ever give away the power to print money to private hands. They aren't that bribeable.
- slickrick216 4y ago
  Governments only have that power cause the people vest them with it. If other individual citizens want to print money that’s their business. No one should be forcibly obliged to only accept certain forms of legal tender. There’s something to be said for taking this power away from governments as it’s been serially mishandled.
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    Will this always be true though? I'm not even sure it's true now. Regardless, crypto was originally intended to be exactly this: an alternative currency. With all this regulation going on, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with something to the equivalent of "only the government can make and distribute a medium of exchange".
    - slickrick216 4y ago
      Nah it’s not true now even. Should be though.
  - cheriot 4y ago
    > No one should be forcibly obliged to only accept certain forms of legal tender. You can start a business and accept monopoly money if you want, but that's not what most crypto promoters are after. The limits are on selling securities. All the crypto scams remind us why.
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Makes sense given how much attention the industry is getting in politics right now. Just look recent/upcoming briefings, not to mention Senator Lummis' planned crypto bill--of course the crypto industry is going full offense now while the regulatory landscape is still being shaped. https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/149186/heres-a-full-draft-of-senator-cynthia-lummis-landmark-crypto-bill https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/149186/heres-a-full-draf... https://homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/terrorism-and-cryptocurrency-industry-perspectives https://homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/terrorism-and... https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/examining-digital-assets-risks-regulation-and-innovation https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/examining-digita...
- Animats 4y ago
  They have to bribe their way out of jail. There is little question that many metaverse NFTs are investments, under the Howey Test. Pay now, maybe someday they build a metaverse. That's a speculative investment where success depends on the people you paid money to doing something. These things have become too big to escape the attention of regulators. Yuga Labs's BAYC raised half a billion dollars for their "Otherside" metaverse. It doesn't exist. The people they claim are building it, Animoca Brands, don't say they're building it. That gets the SEC's attention.
  - Animats 4y ago
    Animoca Brands just mentioned partnering with Yuga Labs in an investor update.[1] [1] https://www.animocabrands.com/animoca-brands-investor-update-for-the-period-ended-on-30-april-2022 https://www.animocabrands.com/animoca-brands-investor-update...
  - api 4y ago
    There has always been financial fraud, but the thing I find particularly gross here is the large scale participation of retail investors. That seems new to me, at least since the days of wildcat banks. It’s also an industry that seems to create virtually no value.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jasonsb 4y ago
This seems to be the final step of decentralization.
jerkstate 4y ago
honestly, the negative externalities of big crypto are probably less bad for humanity than the other two
- driscoll42 4y ago
  Maybe, but the positive externalities of both are vastly better for humanity than crypto.
  - dman7 4y ago
    False. While pharma and defense have positive externalities, it's far fetched to conclude that those are "vastly better for humanity".
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      You seriously think medicine is less useful than crypto? That’s remarkable.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    Defense is a necessary evil, it doesn't make the world better, it just protects interests/the status quo. I'm not anti defense but the most positive outcome is you kill others before they kill you or at best intimidate them enough so that they don't attack. If that's "positive" in your view then nuclear weapons are the biggest success story, they've caused the least amount of death of all weapons we've developed so far. And yet saying they aren't very popular among the majority of the world's population would be an understatement. Humanity would be better if there were no armies, in an ideal utopian society. The same goes for the pharma industry in its current form - it's just pure evil. Leeches on society that are extracting as much money as possible from the IP they hold.
    - driscoll42 4y ago
      I agree, in an ideal utopian world there would be no need for armies or defense. But that's not the world we live in, and at least in my personal belief, it's unlikely we ever will and we must judge what things are and act accordingly. I think nuclear weapons are a fantastic success story in preventing major war between nations for the past 77 years. Probably the single greatest enabler of peace in the 20th and 21st century. Do I wish that they weren't needed? 100%. I would love if we could focus on using nuclear for non-destructive purposes. But I firmly believe they are the reason there was no WWIII or even WWIV during the Cold War or now during rising tensions between the USA and Russia and/or China. I respect that nuclear weapons are terrible devices, awful in their destruction beyond comprehension, but unless humanity as a society evolves into some kind of "better" race, I would not wish for a world without them. Popularity does not mean that something is needed. I will grant that we should strive toward that better world, and constrain the military from acting toward it's easier, destructive attitudes and maybe one day we will no longer need it. But to simply say that the most positive outcome is that it "intimidates others so that they don't attack" and to treat that as something that's barely worth mention and almost "evil"? That's beyond reckless and a dangerous, misguided, and ultimately against the best interests of humanities future. I won't claim to be as deeply knowledgeable about pharma, it's an industry in clear need of reform and regulation, but it also proved itself during COVID to make vaccines for the world, and while I completely agree that it prioritizes profit over saving lives, and likely allowing people to die because it's just not profitable to produce a drug it researched, it has developed many life saving drugs that have saved more lives. I would not call them "pure" evil, if for no other reason than as soon as you start treating an industry, a people as "pure" evil, they have no reason whatsoever to listen to you and work with you.
larsiusprime 4y ago
According to the article it seems the vast majority of the donations come from one person - Sam Bankman-Fried?
- tootie 4y ago
  He's apparently pledged $1B to support Democrats in 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/crypto-billionaire-says-spend-record-breaking-1-billion-2024-election-rcna30351 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/crypto-billio...
  - throwk8s 4y ago
    That's horrible news for the Democrats. If they refuse the donations, that's a strong statement on cryptocurrencies, which is a controversial issue they'd probably prefer to ignore, since it's not particularly relevant to their aims. If they choose to take the money, they risk having to defend that choice if the cryptocurrency industry collapses in disgrace.
    - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
      >Democrats >refuse the donations Hahaha. They have already accepted millions of dollars donated by him to various PACs, among them Pelosi's "House Majority PAC". He was among the largest donors to Bidens campaign. He also donated USD 10 million to "Protect Our Future" PAC, which supposedly is about protecting the environment and caring about "biodiversity" according to their website, but has actually forwarded that money to politicians. They exclusively give to Democrats as a ProPublica investigation has shown¹. $13.5 million to some candidate for Oregon that ended up losing for example. ¹ https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514/2022/independent-expenditures https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514...
      - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
        I don't know Sam Bankman-Friend personally but we have some connections in common and I'm also somewhat involved in the Effective Altruism community which he is also a part of. While it is difficult to disentangle where he is advocating for his own business interests versus personal interests, I think especially when it comes to the money for the "Protect Our Future" PAC and subsequently for the Carrick Flynn campaign ("some candidate for Oregon" that you mentioned) these donations were more about longtermist beliefs, especially around pandemic prevention than anything around crypto. I think this politico article probably has the best overview: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-flynn-save-world-congress-00031959 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-fl...
mhoad 4y ago
Entirely inline with their main value proposition that “nobody can control it”.
WheatM 4y ago
I really don't understand why there is so much money in American politics. The numbers absolutely floor me, tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Other countries have campaign financing and spending limits for very good reasons, but Americans seem to be totally fine with elections being financed by special interests??
- cheriot 4y ago
  American politics doesn't do well with issues when there's a) broad agreement among voters b) few voters will change their vote for it c) wealthy donors disagree
lota-putty 4y ago
When you pump too much steroids into bloodstream you get a freak. "cryto-currency" is an offspring of fiat-currency fiasco.
- beefield 4y ago
  There is a long history of non-fiat currencies before the current system. Would you mind quantifying some of the measures that you think make fiat a fiasco compared to e.g. gold standard? Here is some background data: https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-gold-standard-is-a-very-bad-idea https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-...
cerfcerfyas 4y ago
crypto is a trojan horse
cerfcerfyas 4y ago
crypto is a trojan horse, you will see!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Bet they wish they had that fiat currency back now.
oliwarner 4y ago
Pharma and [private] defense have other muscles to flex. They hire millions of people around the world, sell governments billions at negotiated rates. These mechanisms give them much more influence, in a far more opaque way than donations.
gruez 4y ago
> [...] the biggest spender thus far is Sam Bankman-Fried, the billionaire co-founder of the FTX exchange. [...] Overall, he’s pumped in about $32 million, 75% of the industry’s total [...] Bankman-Fried said his political agenda extends well-beyond crypto regulation, and his spending is now primarily focused on pandemic preparedness. [...] >The FTX CEO has used a super political action committee known as Protect Our Future for most of his spending. While several Democrats supported by that PAC have won primary contests, its biggest outlay of $11.4 million failed to boost Oregon Democrat Carrick Flynn, a political newcomer who ran on increasing readiness for a pandemic. Based on this, it seems safe to conclude that this is less "entire industry massively lobbying for favorable regulations" and more "a crypto billionaire splashing money around for causes he wants to support".

92 points by keewee7 4y ago

So we end up with crypto bribing the people with the guns. Turns out they are powerful after all. Who could have guessed. But governments won't ever give away the power to print money to private hands. They aren't that bribeable.

slickrick216 4y ago
Governments only have that power cause the people vest them with it. If other individual citizens want to print money that’s their business. No one should be forcibly obliged to only accept certain forms of legal tender. There’s something to be said for taking this power away from governments as it’s been serially mishandled.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  Will this always be true though? I'm not even sure it's true now. Regardless, crypto was originally intended to be exactly this: an alternative currency. With all this regulation going on, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with something to the equivalent of "only the government can make and distribute a medium of exchange".
  - slickrick216 4y ago
    Nah it’s not true now even. Should be though.
- cheriot 4y ago
  > No one should be forcibly obliged to only accept certain forms of legal tender. You can start a business and accept monopoly money if you want, but that's not what most crypto promoters are after. The limits are on selling securities. All the crypto scams remind us why.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago

Makes sense given how much attention the industry is getting in politics right now. Just look recent/upcoming briefings, not to mention Senator Lummis' planned crypto bill--of course the crypto industry is going full offense now while the regulatory landscape is still being shaped. https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/149186/heres-a-full-draft-of-senator-cynthia-lummis-landmark-crypto-bill https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/149186/heres-a-full-draf... https://homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/terrorism-and-cryptocurrency-industry-perspectives https://homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/terrorism-and... https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/examining-digital-assets-risks-regulation-and-innovation https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/examining-digita...

Animats 4y ago
They have to bribe their way out of jail. There is little question that many metaverse NFTs are investments, under the Howey Test. Pay now, maybe someday they build a metaverse. That's a speculative investment where success depends on the people you paid money to doing something. These things have become too big to escape the attention of regulators. Yuga Labs's BAYC raised half a billion dollars for their "Otherside" metaverse. It doesn't exist. The people they claim are building it, Animoca Brands, don't say they're building it. That gets the SEC's attention.
- Animats 4y ago
  Animoca Brands just mentioned partnering with Yuga Labs in an investor update.[1] [1] https://www.animocabrands.com/animoca-brands-investor-update-for-the-period-ended-on-30-april-2022 https://www.animocabrands.com/animoca-brands-investor-update...
- api 4y ago
  There has always been financial fraud, but the thing I find particularly gross here is the large scale participation of retail investors. That seems new to me, at least since the days of wildcat banks. It’s also an industry that seems to create virtually no value.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jasonsb 4y ago

This seems to be the final step of decentralization.

jerkstate 4y ago

honestly, the negative externalities of big crypto are probably less bad for humanity than the other two

driscoll42 4y ago
Maybe, but the positive externalities of both are vastly better for humanity than crypto.
- dman7 4y ago
  False. While pharma and defense have positive externalities, it's far fetched to conclude that those are "vastly better for humanity".
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    You seriously think medicine is less useful than crypto? That’s remarkable.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Defense is a necessary evil, it doesn't make the world better, it just protects interests/the status quo. I'm not anti defense but the most positive outcome is you kill others before they kill you or at best intimidate them enough so that they don't attack. If that's "positive" in your view then nuclear weapons are the biggest success story, they've caused the least amount of death of all weapons we've developed so far. And yet saying they aren't very popular among the majority of the world's population would be an understatement. Humanity would be better if there were no armies, in an ideal utopian society. The same goes for the pharma industry in its current form - it's just pure evil. Leeches on society that are extracting as much money as possible from the IP they hold.
  - driscoll42 4y ago
    I agree, in an ideal utopian world there would be no need for armies or defense. But that's not the world we live in, and at least in my personal belief, it's unlikely we ever will and we must judge what things are and act accordingly. I think nuclear weapons are a fantastic success story in preventing major war between nations for the past 77 years. Probably the single greatest enabler of peace in the 20th and 21st century. Do I wish that they weren't needed? 100%. I would love if we could focus on using nuclear for non-destructive purposes. But I firmly believe they are the reason there was no WWIII or even WWIV during the Cold War or now during rising tensions between the USA and Russia and/or China. I respect that nuclear weapons are terrible devices, awful in their destruction beyond comprehension, but unless humanity as a society evolves into some kind of "better" race, I would not wish for a world without them. Popularity does not mean that something is needed. I will grant that we should strive toward that better world, and constrain the military from acting toward it's easier, destructive attitudes and maybe one day we will no longer need it. But to simply say that the most positive outcome is that it "intimidates others so that they don't attack" and to treat that as something that's barely worth mention and almost "evil"? That's beyond reckless and a dangerous, misguided, and ultimately against the best interests of humanities future. I won't claim to be as deeply knowledgeable about pharma, it's an industry in clear need of reform and regulation, but it also proved itself during COVID to make vaccines for the world, and while I completely agree that it prioritizes profit over saving lives, and likely allowing people to die because it's just not profitable to produce a drug it researched, it has developed many life saving drugs that have saved more lives. I would not call them "pure" evil, if for no other reason than as soon as you start treating an industry, a people as "pure" evil, they have no reason whatsoever to listen to you and work with you.

larsiusprime 4y ago

According to the article it seems the vast majority of the donations come from one person - Sam Bankman-Fried?

tootie 4y ago
He's apparently pledged $1B to support Democrats in 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/crypto-billionaire-says-spend-record-breaking-1-billion-2024-election-rcna30351 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/crypto-billio...
- throwk8s 4y ago
  That's horrible news for the Democrats. If they refuse the donations, that's a strong statement on cryptocurrencies, which is a controversial issue they'd probably prefer to ignore, since it's not particularly relevant to their aims. If they choose to take the money, they risk having to defend that choice if the cryptocurrency industry collapses in disgrace.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    >Democrats >refuse the donations Hahaha. They have already accepted millions of dollars donated by him to various PACs, among them Pelosi's "House Majority PAC". He was among the largest donors to Bidens campaign. He also donated USD 10 million to "Protect Our Future" PAC, which supposedly is about protecting the environment and caring about "biodiversity" according to their website, but has actually forwarded that money to politicians. They exclusively give to Democrats as a ProPublica investigation has shown¹. $13.5 million to some candidate for Oregon that ended up losing for example. ¹ https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514/2022/independent-expenditures https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/committee/C00801514...
    - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
      I don't know Sam Bankman-Friend personally but we have some connections in common and I'm also somewhat involved in the Effective Altruism community which he is also a part of. While it is difficult to disentangle where he is advocating for his own business interests versus personal interests, I think especially when it comes to the money for the "Protect Our Future" PAC and subsequently for the Carrick Flynn campaign ("some candidate for Oregon" that you mentioned) these donations were more about longtermist beliefs, especially around pandemic prevention than anything around crypto. I think this politico article probably has the best overview: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-flynn-save-world-congress-00031959 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/12/carrick-fl...

mhoad 4y ago

Entirely inline with their main value proposition that “nobody can control it”.

WheatM 4y ago

I really don't understand why there is so much money in American politics. The numbers absolutely floor me, tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Other countries have campaign financing and spending limits for very good reasons, but Americans seem to be totally fine with elections being financed by special interests??

cheriot 4y ago
American politics doesn't do well with issues when there's a) broad agreement among voters b) few voters will change their vote for it c) wealthy donors disagree

lota-putty 4y ago

When you pump too much steroids into bloodstream you get a freak. "cryto-currency" is an offspring of fiat-currency fiasco.

beefield 4y ago
There is a long history of non-fiat currencies before the current system. Would you mind quantifying some of the measures that you think make fiat a fiasco compared to e.g. gold standard? Here is some background data: https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-gold-standard-is-a-very-bad-idea https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-...

cerfcerfyas 4y ago

crypto is a trojan horse

cerfcerfyas 4y ago

crypto is a trojan horse, you will see!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Bet they wish they had that fiat currency back now.

oliwarner 4y ago

Pharma and [private] defense have other muscles to flex. They hire millions of people around the world, sell governments billions at negotiated rates. These mechanisms give them much more influence, in a far more opaque way than donations.

gruez 4y ago

> [...] the biggest spender thus far is Sam Bankman-Fried, the billionaire co-founder of the FTX exchange. [...] Overall, he’s pumped in about $32 million, 75% of the industry’s total [...] Bankman-Fried said his political agenda extends well-beyond crypto regulation, and his spending is now primarily focused on pandemic preparedness. [...] >The FTX CEO has used a super political action committee known as Protect Our Future for most of his spending. While several Democrats supported by that PAC have won primary contests, its biggest outlay of $11.4 million failed to boost Oregon Democrat Carrick Flynn, a political newcomer who ran on increasing readiness for a pandemic. Based on this, it seems safe to conclude that this is less "entire industry massively lobbying for favorable regulations" and more "a crypto billionaire splashing money around for causes he wants to support".