This House Rejects Political Alignment as a Growth Strategy for Crypto

Four of crypto's most influential legal and policy minds squared off at Breakpoint 2025 in Abu Dhabi over a question that could define the industry's future: Should cryptocurrency align with specific political agendas to fuel growth, or does such alignment threaten the technology's core promise of serving everyone?

Summary

The debate featured Miller Whitehouse-Levine from the Solana Policy Institute and Rebecca Rettig from Jito Labs arguing against political alignment, while Marco Santori from Solmate and Greg Xethalis from Multicoin Capital advocated for strategic political engagement. What emerged was a nuanced discussion that revealed surprising areas of agreement beneath the surface disagreement.

The anti-alignment side argued that crypto's growth has historically been driven by innovation, not politics. They pointed to the 2021-2024 period when, despite extraordinarily hostile U.S. policy, cryptocurrency grew significantly. They cautioned that aligning with any particular political faction risks creating an equal and opposite backlash when power shifts—a lesson they illustrated using the UK's experience under Rishi Sunak's government.

The pro-alignment side countered that political engagement isn't the same as partisanship. They emphasized that crypto didn't choose to become political—politics came to crypto through enforcement actions, denied banking services, and regulatory hostility. In their view, silence isn't neutrality; it's "consent to be defined by your loudest critics." They pointed to recent bipartisan achievements, including Democratic legislators voting for crypto-friendly legislation, as evidence that principled engagement works.

Both sides ultimately agreed on one thing: engagement matters. The real disagreement centered on whether that engagement should be broad and neutral or strategically aligned with specific principles and their political champions.

Key Points:

Innovation Drives Growth, Not Politics

Miller Whitehouse-Levine opened with a fundamental argument: crypto's relevance comes from what builders create, not from political favor. He emphasized that policymakers and laws are not typically sources of innovation—they're designed to address negative externalities of growth. The products and protocols built by developers in the room are what made crypto important enough to warrant political attention in the first place.

This point was reinforced with historical evidence. Between 2021 and 2024, when U.S. policy was "extraordinarily hostile to crypto," the industry still grew significantly—arguably more than in the subsequent 12 months of friendlier policy environments. This suggests that alignment with any particular political agenda may not move the needle on growth as much as innovation and adoption do.

The Risk of Partisan Backlash

Rebecca Rettig from Jito Labs warned that every political action creates an "equal and opposite reaction." She illustrated this using the UK as a cautionary tale: during Rishi Sunak's tenure, crypto companies flocked to Britain, opened offices, and engaged heavily with regulators at 10 Downing Street. Now that Sunak is out of power, crypto policy progress has slowed.

In contrast, she argued that the U.S. experience shows the value of bipartisan engagement. The passage of the Genius Act (stablecoin legislation) was possible because crypto advocates engaged with both sides of the aisle, even during a hostile administration. Had the industry aligned exclusively with one party, Democratic support would likely never have materialized.

Political Alignment vs. Principled Engagement

Marco Santori reframed the debate by distinguishing between alignment and partisanship. He argued that "political alignment is not partisanship—it's choosing principles." Industries that fail to articulate their principles have those principles defined for them by adversaries.

He outlined the principles crypto should organize around: pro-innovation, pro-open systems, pro-consumer protection through market transparency, and anti-regulation by enforcement. These principles, he argued, resonate across ideologies. The evidence? Dozens of Democratic legislators voted for crypto-friendly market structure frameworks, including CRA legislation—something that wouldn't happen without active engagement.

The Reality of Political Hostility

Greg Xethalis delivered perhaps the most direct argument for engagement. He noted that political actors are actively fundraising against the crypto industry—"that's not a hypothetical risk, that's a budget line item in a political campaign." Against such active opposition, he argued, "staying above the fray is not a philosophy—it's an engraved invitation to keep hitting you."

He traced the hostile actions crypto has already faced: tokens declared securities without rulemaking, enforcement replacing policy, ecosystems denied banking services, and innovators treated as hostile actors via subpoena. These attacks happened while the industry tried to stay apolitical. "We didn't land on Capitol Hill," Xethalis said. "Capitol Hill landed on us."

Global Implications of U.S. Policy

While the debate featured four American legal experts discussing a global technology at a conference in Abu Dhabi, this wasn't oversight—it reflects reality. Greg Xethalis noted that "the United States is the only country in the world that thinks its borders have no ends." U.S. policy has global extraterritoriality, and the Southern District of New York's reach extends far beyond American shores. Getting U.S. policy right matters not just for American crypto companies but for the entire global ecosystem.

Day-to-Day Regulation Is Apolitical

Rebecca Rettig made an important practical point: the actual implementation of policy happens through career staff who remain regardless of which party holds power. The staffers on Capitol Hill, the officials at regulatory agencies—these are the people writing the rules day-to-day. Politics may set the tone, but implementation is largely apolitical. This argues for consistent engagement across administrations and parties.

Facts + Figures

• The Solana Policy Institute advocates on behalf of anyone working in the Solana ecosystem in Washington, D.C. and is expanding globally

• Between 2021 and 2024, crypto grew significantly despite extraordinarily hostile U.S. policy—arguably more than in the following 12 months of friendlier policy

• The Genius Act (stablecoin legislation) passed with bipartisan support, including Democratic votes, after years of cross-aisle engagement

• Dozens of Democratic legislators voted for crypto-friendly market structure frameworks during the recent legislative push

• The speakers represent a combined three decades of crypto policy experience across the U.S., Europe, and emerging markets

• Political actors are actively fundraising by positioning themselves against cryptocurrency—anti-crypto messaging has become a political budget line item

• During the hostile 2021-2024 period, enforcement actions replaced policy, ecosystems were denied banking services, and tokens were declared securities without formal rulemaking

• The UK crypto policy push under Rishi Sunak attracted significant industry investment, but progress has slowed since his departure from power

Top Quotes

"Neutrality is not a protection strategy. It's a permission slip for others to define your future." — Marco Santori

"We didn't land on Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill landed on us." — Greg Xethalis

"Silence is not neutrality. Silence is consent to be defined by your loudest critics." — Greg Xethalis

"Political alignment is not partisanship. It's choosing principles." — Marco Santori

"Education without political leverage produces exactly what we've had for the last four years—innovation shaped by subpoenas and settlements rather than statutes." — Greg Xethalis

"If we align with one side in any country and with one political party or political position at any time, you're going to have a strong and forceful backlash." — Rebecca Rettig

"D.C. policymakers' laws are not generally the source of wonders and innovations that make the world a better place." — Miller Whitehouse-Levine

"Every builder here should dig in. Talk about what you are building. Talk to the people wherever you live about what you're building." — Rebecca Rettig

"Backlash is a feature of disengagement, not a bug of alignment." — Greg Xethalis

"The United States is the only country in the world that thinks its borders have no ends." — Greg Xethalis

Questions Answered

Should crypto companies and builders engage with politics at all?

All four panelists agreed that engagement is essential—the disagreement was over the nature of that engagement. The pro-alignment side argued for strategic political engagement organized around clear principles, while the anti-alignment side advocated for broad, neutral engagement that avoids picking sides. Rebecca Rettig specifically encouraged every builder to "dig in" and communicate what they're building to people in their own countries. The consensus was that complete disengagement leaves the industry vulnerable to having its narrative defined by critics.

Did crypto's growth during 2021-2024 prove that political hostility doesn't matter?

Miller Whitehouse-Levine cited this period as evidence that innovation drives growth regardless of political climate. However, Greg Xethalis countered that while the industry survived, it suffered significant damage through enforcement actions, denied banking services, and regulatory uncertainty. The growth during this period came despite political hostility, not because of it—and strategic engagement might have prevented much of the harm. Both sides acknowledge that crypto is resilient, but they disagree on whether that resilience means political engagement is unnecessary.

What principles should crypto organize around politically?

Marco Santori outlined several core principles that resonate across political ideologies: pro-innovation, pro-open systems, pro-consumer protection through market transparency, and anti-regulation by enforcement. These principles aren't partisan—they form the foundation of modern financial systems and have attracted support from legislators on both sides of the aisle. The key is articulating these principles clearly and consistently, rather than aligning with specific political parties or candidates.

What happened with UK crypto policy under Rishi Sunak?

Rebecca Rettig used the UK as a cautionary tale about political alignment. When Rishi Sunak was in power, he championed crypto and the industry responded enthusiastically—companies opened UK offices, attended meetings at 10 Downing Street, and invested heavily in the British market. However, since Sunak left power, crypto policy progress has slowed significantly. This illustrates the risk of tying industry fortunes too closely to any individual political leader or party—what happens when they lose power?

Why does U.S. crypto policy matter for the global ecosystem?

Despite being a global technology discussed at an international conference in Abu Dhabi, the panel focused on U.S. policy because of America's unique global reach. U.S. laws have extraterritorial application—the Southern District of New York regularly pursues cases involving international defendants and transactions. Additionally, U.S. policy often serves as a template for other jurisdictions. Getting regulation right in the United States therefore has implications far beyond American borders and affects crypto builders worldwide.

How did the Genius Act pass with bipartisan support?

The Genius Act, which provides regulatory clarity for stablecoins, passed because crypto advocates spent years engaging with both sides of the aisle. Even during the hostile 2021-2024 period, advocates maintained relationships with Democratic legislators and staff. When the legislative moment arrived, this groundwork enabled Democratic votes that were essential for passage. Had the industry aligned exclusively with Republicans during that period, this bipartisan outcome would have been impossible.