Shortly after the U.S. election outcomes were revealed, I received messages from acquaintances brimming with stark assumptions. Some congratulated me, humorously stating, “Congrats, your side triumphed for Bitcoin.” Others voiced discontent with comments like, “It’s disgraceful!” and “I can’t believe Americans just voted for Hitler.” One acquaintance remarked, “You were fortunate to find refuge in the U.S. under Biden’s administration. Refugees and asylum seekers will now encounter more challenges here, but, hey, it’s still beneficial for your Bitcoin.” Many of these individuals hold prominent corporate positions or are university students.
As a Green Card holder, I was not permitted to cast a vote, but I acknowledge their significant disappointment in witnessing their favored candidate’s defeat. Their frustrations were directed towards me since they know I advocate for Bitcoin and work in that sector. I comprehend that making me a scapegoat reflects less on me and more on their limited comprehension of what Bitcoin’s value signifies.
I recognize that in this deeply divided political environment, ideological stereotyping becomes apparent—not just during election times but also in areas where innovative thought ought to be encouraged. A stark example of this ideological prejudice unfolded during the Ohio State University commencement, where Chris Pan’s address regarding Bitcoin was predominantly met with boos from the graduating students. I admire the bravery it took to remain resolute in front of over 60,000 people and continue his presentation. I speculate that most of these graduating individuals have never endured hyperinflation or grown up under totalitarian regimes, which likely triggered an “auto-reject” response to ideas outside their direct experience.
I’ve faced similar resistance in my own incomplete academic journey; during my time at Georgetown, I engaged in several unproductive discussions with educators and students who perceived Bitcoin as a far-right instrument. Once a professor told me, “Win, just because cryptocurrency (he didn’t use the term Bitcoin) benefited you and your people in your home country doesn’t make it a remarkable tool—most individuals end up being scammed in America and various regions globally. I encourage you to delve deeper into it.” The power dynamics in educational environments frequently inhibit open-minded dialogue, which is why I ultimately ceased discussing Bitcoin with my professors.
I’ve come to realize that freedom of expression is a fundamental American principle. Yet, I’ve noticed that certain demographics or groups label anyone with whom they disagree as ‘racist.’ In more extreme circumstances, this response can escalate to utilizing influence to have individuals dismissed from their jobs or expelled from educational institutions, or subjected to organized cyber harassment. I’m not asserting that racism is absent in American society or elsewhere; I firmly believe both overt and subtle manifestations of racism continue to persist and are very much alive today.
Although prejudice and disparity remain prevalent, Bitcoin operates on entirely distinct principles. Bitcoin is borderless, leaderless, and accepting of any nationality or ethnicity without necessitating any form of identification to partake. Individuals in war-affected nations convert their savings into Bitcoin to safely cross borders, human rights advocates receive contributions in Bitcoin, and women in Taliban-controlled areas receive payments through the Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin is not racist as it serves as a tool of empowerment for anyone willing to engage. Bitcoin is not xenophobic as it allows those compelled to abandon their homes the ability to carry their hard-earned economic energy across borders and partake in another economy when every other option is shut down. For activists often labeled ‘criminals’ by authoritarian regimes, it supports them through frozen bank accounts and restricted resources. For women enduring life under misogynistic governance, Bitcoin presents a rare opportunity for financial autonomy.
Returning to the context of the U.S. elections, Bitcoin not only equalizes opportunities for individuals in the world’s most neglected areas and darkest regions, but it also paves new pathways for U.S. presidential candidates to connect with this expanding community. President-elect Donald Trump has made bold commitments concerning Bitcoin, indicating a favorable policy stance. Conversely, Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign reportedly declined to endorse the Bitcoin community. Grant McCarty, co-founder of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, mentioned, “Can confirm that the Harris campaign was offered MILLIONS of dollars from companies, PACs, and individuals hoping for her to merely engage in meetings with key crypto players and formulate a defined crypto policy plan. The campaign never regarded the industry with seriousness.” I believe this is something many people might be oblivious to, and confirmation bias frequently leads to the conclusion that all Bitcoin proponents support every policy of the opposing side, including potential drastic adjustments to America’s humanitarian commitments such as refugee resettlement and asylum initiatives, anti-trafficking efforts, and aid for vulnerable populations, alongside foreign assistance and disaster relief.
Most individuals globally lack a stable economic structure or access to long-term mortgages; they live and earn with currencies that are more unstable than cryptocurrency gambling and, in some instances, holding their own fiat currency is as perilous as casino chips, or even worse.
The fiat experiment has failed the global majority. I assert that Bitcoin and its advocates deserve to be evaluated based on their merits and contributions to global impact, rather than through the binary perspective of political bias, misapplied terminology, or factually flawed yet socially accepted reductive categorization, which allows individuals to evade learning and critically assessing their assumptions.
This is a guest piece by Win Ko Ko Aung. The viewpoints expressed are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.