Two years ago, the $2 trillion crypto industry had scant representation in Washington, D.C. and often didn’t have a cohesive response to attacks by elected officials and regulators. In one of the biggest shifts in recent political memory, crypto now counts the fourth-largest political action committee among its staunches allies. 

In the current 2024 cycle, Fairshake PAC has raised $247 million, ahead of similar committees trying to hold majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, according to data compiled by Open Secrets. That money has mostly come from some of the largest, and most centralized, players in crypto – Coinbase, Ripple Labs and the venture capital firm a16z, whose partners Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz gave a whopping $44 million to Fairshake. 

Cameron and Tyler  Winklevoss, founders of the exchange Gemini and early Bitcoin adopters, gave $5 million while Coinbase Chief Executive Officer Brian Armstrong gave $1 million. 

While the case can be made that the industry is mobilizing an army of crypto advocates to protect digital asset innovation in the United States amid a lack of regulatory clarity, it begs the question: Are there too many centralized players in the decentralized industry with outsized influence? 

Market capture, under the guise of a good cause? 

Initiatives like Coinbase’s Stand with Crypto provide a tally board of the politicians who are crypto-friendly. 

Stand with Crypto states it represents the 52 million people who own digital assets, with 41 percent identifying as a racial minority. Yet, voting solely on a candidate’s stance on crypto would mean team Trump-Vance is the top choice. New research reveals over three quarters of black voters are leaning toward Harris-Walz. 

Azeem Khan is the co-founder of Morph who spent two years at crypto-fundraising startup Gitcoin and has been involved in the Stand with Crypto advocacy. He said the massive fundraising has been good for the industry. 

“Without any organized action, the decentralized movement doesn’t have a clear and effective vehicle for advocacy in D.C.,” Khan said. “There’s a way things need to be done in D.C. and this is just that. In some ways, I see it no different than DAOs delegating token voting.” 

During his time at Gitcoin, Khan was in charge of helping oversee the regulatory advocacy grant rounds, which typically gave out millions of dollars. He doesn’t believe any companies or individuals donating large amounts of money are gaining outsized power. 

“I’ve got experience with being someone who was effectively a vehicle to help donate large amounts of money without being able to get any sort of favoritism for it,” he said. 

Khan noted the irony that decentralization needs a cult of personality to be able to lead it forward. 

“Whether Satoshi, Vitalik, Armstrong, Anatoly, and so on, our industry looks to find ways to lionize certain people to elevated status, and I don’t actually find that to be the worst as long as we can get the right leaders at the helm of things,” he said. “The idea of having a decentralized industry that can work remotely from anywhere in the world using decentralizing tooling successfully doesn’t mean that we can’t have certain people or organizations that we trust to make sure our interests are being taken care of.” 

Cody Carbone, chief policy officer at the Digital Chamber in Washington, said the evolution of the industry’s political muscle now culminating in super PAC involvement has legitimized crypto. “For so long, crypto has been viewed as a bridge policy issue and now everyone in Washington is interested in what’s happening,” Carbone said. 

The efforts have forced members of Congress, who had previously ignored it or cast it away as a fringe issue, to start to take a position. From a policy and advocacy standpoint, it’s one of the best things that could have happened, Carbone said. 

“I knew that people voted with their wallet, but I didn’t think that evolved into crypto yet,” he said. “I thought we were just too nascent. To see the super PACs funded and the amount of energy from the community in the political process is something I’ve never seen before.” 

Crypto has become akin to a social issue, with a temperature similar to that of abortion, gun rights or sexual orientation, he said. “People are talking about it like it is freedom of speech,” he said. 

When asked whether the decentralized industry needs a centralized force, Carbone believes it’s fine when it comes to political fundraising, but not when it impacts policy. “I’m okay with Coinbase putting up the money to represent this industry, but I’m not okay with Coinbase being the sole decision maker on how DeFi or the entire industry is regulated.” 

Having a resource like Stand with Crypto is necessary, but it should be a piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle, Carbone concluded. 

Stand with Crypto and Fairshake PAC have been under scrutiny in recent weeks, after a tweet from crypto researcher and commentator Molly White, went viral. She reported that the Stand with Crypto donations didn’t line up with FEC filing records. 

They’ve since changed the language on the website, acknowledging that the majority of the donations were corporate contributions to Fairshake PAC. In other words, the “crypto advocates” are industry folks with vested interest, not from the 52 million Americans who own crypto. According to the website, of the $179 million raised, only $1.49 million was donated to the Stand with Crypto Alliance 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. 

It’s yet to be seen what the lasting impact the millions will make on the industry or if crypto will have staying power in DC, post-November.