Encryption stance should not be the sole criterion for political choice.

In recent years, cryptocurrency has become a hot topic in political policy. Countries are considering introducing bills to regulate blockchain-related businesses. While some bills seem reasonable, there are concerns that the government may take extreme measures. As the importance of encryption issues in the political sphere continues to grow, some individuals are beginning to decide whom to support based entirely on candidates' attitudes towards cryptocurrency.

This article believes that this trend deserves vigilance, especially since this practice is likely to violate the values that initially attracted people to enter the encryption field.

Encryption is not just about cryptocurrency and blockchain. In the field of encryption, people often focus excessively on the central role of "money" and the freedom to hold and use money ( or tokens ). While this is indeed an important issue, it is not enough to focus solely on cryptocurrency and blockchain, nor does it align with the original vision of creating encryption technology.

The cypherpunk movement is the true origin of encryption technology. It embodies a broader spirit of technological libertarianism, advocating for the protection and enhancement of individual freedom through freely open technology. As early as the 2000s, the main issue was resisting restrictive copyright legislation. Seed networks, encryption, and internet anonymization became the primary weapons in this struggle, highlighting the importance of decentralization.

Bitcoin is seen as an extension of this spirit in the internet payment sector. The original purpose of creating blockchain and encryption was: freedom is important, decentralized networks are good at protecting freedom, and money is just one of the important areas where this network can be applied. In addition to financial freedom, there are also some equally important technological freedoms:

• Freedom of communication and privacy
• Freedom and privacy-friendly digital identity
• Freedom of thought and privacy
• Acquisition of high-quality information

The fundamental goal of participating in cryptocurrency often transcends the technology itself. If you care about freedom, you might want the government to respect family freedom. If you care about building a more efficient and fair economy, you might be concerned about the impact on real estate, among other things.

Therefore, we should not only support the cryptocurrency itself but also the fundamental goals and the entire set of policy implications that arise from it.

Internationalism has always been a social and political cause cherished by cypherpunks. The internet and cryptocurrencies have the potential to greatly facilitate the flattening of the global economy. However, if the concern for "encryption" is because it benefits internationalism, then politicians and their policies should also be judged based on their level of concern for the external world.

Being friendly to encryption now does not mean it will be the same in the future. It is worth looking at the views of politicians five years ago on cryptocurrencies and related topics, especially on the inconsistent topic of "supporting freedom" versus "supporting corporations". This can well predict the changes that may occur in their views in the future.

The goals of decentralization and acceleration can sometimes diverge. Regulation is often detrimental to both, but these goals may inevitably go their separate ways. This may have already occurred in the field of artificial intelligence. If you see a politician who "supports encryption", it is worth exploring their underlying values to understand which side they would prioritize in the event of a real conflict.

Dictatorial governments generally exhibit a "cryptocurrency-friendly" attitude, which deserves caution. Taking Russia as an example, its policy simply includes two aspects: it's good when the government uses encryption, but it's bad when citizens use encryption. If a politician supports cryptocurrency today, but they are very power-hungry or willing to flatter those in power, then this may indicate their future advocacy direction for cryptocurrency.

By publicly supporting candidates who "support encryption currency" simply because they "support encryption currency", we are actually cultivating a bad incentive mechanism. This will lead politicians to believe that as long as they support encryption currency trading, they can gain support without having to care about other important issues.

Whether you are a major donor, an influential internet celebrity, or an ordinary citizen, you can help develop a more respectable incentive mechanism. The key question is: Are the reasons politicians support encryption correct? Do they share the same vision as you regarding the development of technology, politics, and the economy in the 21st century? Do they have a good positive vision and go beyond short-term concerns?

If so, that's great: you should support them and clearly state that this is the reason for your support. If not, then either stay completely out of it, or seek better forces to ally with.