alt.hn

6/30/2026 at 4:44:31 PM

Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says

 https://www.reuters.com/world/crypto-firms-have-spent-189-million-so-far-2026-us-election-report-says-2026-06-30/

by tartoran

6/30/2026 at 5:16:40 PM

A UK party rising up the charts is caught up in a scandal - crypto guy gave the party leader (personally) £5m which he failed to declare and he started the party a few days later indicating he was paid to start the party.

It came out when Crypto guy gave an interview and mentioned it not realising the consequences.

The party leader first claimed it was for security.

Then it was determined he had bought property with it.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-nigel-fara...

by khurs

6/30/2026 at 6:25:08 PM

Crypto money makes a change from Russian bribes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6xwy015ngo

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-58711151

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/04/lord-evans-...

by lostlogin

6/30/2026 at 8:26:17 PM

Explain again how crypto money is not Russian bribes?

by actionfromafar

6/30/2026 at 9:33:47 PM

Christopher Harborne isn't Russian, and Thailand isn't Russia.

by jodrellblank

7/1/2026 at 7:49:46 AM

With crypto, how would you know where the money is really from?

by actionfromafar

6/30/2026 at 7:54:33 PM

> Crypto guy

"Crypto guy" is understating Christopher Harbone's (alias Chakrit Sakunkrit) reach. He was big in Asian aviation back in the day and is a relatively large player in the British DefenseTech space via QinetiQ. He was also one of the earlier investors in Tether.

He also previously bankrolled Boris Johnson and was his Ukraine advisor [0].

[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/10/the-1m-man-...

by alephnerd

6/30/2026 at 9:36:24 PM

> "relatively large player in the British DefenseTech space via QinetiQ"

After he donated £1m to The Office of Boris Johnson, £270k to the Conservative Party, and the Conservative government gave QinetiQ an £80m defence contract. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Harborne#Political...

by jodrellblank

6/30/2026 at 6:19:36 PM

I remember watching Sky News and hearing that UK political parties were from then on forbidden to take donations in crypto which is just another nail in the coffin of crypto. All started going downhill when Satoshi left his Bitcoin project.

by mrkramer

6/30/2026 at 6:10:48 PM

Nice - one don't even have to click the URL to know what POS is involved.

by nixosbestos

6/30/2026 at 5:27:35 PM

I wonder why all the libertarian freedom loving crypto guys keep backing fascists

by stanleykm

6/30/2026 at 7:06:04 PM

Because they are not really true liberterians. They are more ”I wanna be free from rules but I want more rules for others”

by victorbjorklund

6/30/2026 at 5:58:18 PM

It’s not your freedom they care about.

by nkrisc

6/30/2026 at 5:56:21 PM

Because they're not as much 'freedom loving' as they are 'selfish dicks.'

by Finnucane

6/30/2026 at 5:59:52 PM

Christopher Harborne - not just a libertarian freedom loving crypto guy, but also the largest single shareholder of QinetiQ, a pretty notable UK Defence company.

by sardine5

6/30/2026 at 6:15:24 PM

They're idiots. They think that they just need to be buddies with the leading fascist and they're going to be golden. They don't have enough knowledge or curiosity to study what happened EVERY time this was attempted.

Hint: you might be buddies with the big fascist now, but this can change at any moment. And then you're just fodder for his _other_ cronies. Oh, and don't forget that even if you think that you're adept at court intrigue and covert ops, your _children_ might not be so skilled. Will they retain your fortune when the big fascist suddenly decides to... reallocate... some of their wealth?

by cyberax

6/30/2026 at 5:31:23 PM

It's not hard to figure out, the fascists have been more explicitly welcoming to crypto freedom or at least put themselves out there to solicit that vote even if you claim their underlying policies aren't. Trump offered the freedom of Ross Ulbricht at the libertarian convention, did Kamala come to the libertarian convention and offer anything?

by mothballed

6/30/2026 at 8:28:39 PM

> Trump offered the freedom of Ross Ulbricht at the libertarian convention

Libertarianism is when you can buy your way out of criminal convictions?

by pjc50

6/30/2026 at 8:43:47 PM

Trump wasn't running on Libertarianism (you can argue he pretended to at the convention, but no one actually buy that) , he was running on "Neither one of us is offering you libertarianism, but I will at least come here and offer you something."

by mothballed

6/30/2026 at 6:36:37 PM

> did Kamala come to the libertarian convention and offer anything?

I thought that offering ‘not Trump’ would be enough. I was very wrong.

by lostlogin

6/30/2026 at 7:51:07 PM

If you back fascists to promote crypto, your values are fucked.

by ToucanLoucan

6/30/2026 at 8:21:58 PM

It's no wonder the fascists won the "libertarian" crypto vote when the message you and sister have for the comments as your campaign slogan to those voters is "your values are fucked" and "at least we're not the guy who showed up and offered you something."

Did you think "your values are fucked" is actually persuasive at garnering votes?

by mothballed

6/30/2026 at 9:30:31 PM

If libertarians can't parse than putting fascists in power is, long term, a bad fucking idea as demonstrated literally every time it's happened throughout history, I don't want their fucking vote. I'm not interested in their opinion about anything, especially this.

It is not my nor anyone else's job, including Kamala's for that matter, to coddle your sweet little fee fees about wanting your fake power-wasting money to work. It is especially not anyone's job to tolerate socially corrosive viewpoints like fascism to indulge your ponzi scheme. Full stop.

It's also well documented that fascists will happily enable and cosign the efforts of whatever their chosen right people are to steal money on industrial scales from everyone else, so they were always going to support crypto. Completely foregone conclusion and to be honest, I'd bet money that a notable amount of crypto figures did in fact know that and voted accordingly for the party that was prepared to let them get away with financial crimes, as they have done before, here and elsewhere.

If you're so offended at the notion of someone saying your values are fucked, respectfully, un-fuck your values and then I won't have to say it anymore.

by ToucanLoucan

6/30/2026 at 9:43:19 PM

[flagged]

by mothballed

7/1/2026 at 12:58:40 PM

I don't know where the logic "we're supporting horrible things, but if you look down on us for it that makes you worse! Yeah!" came from, but it's not very good.

by jodrellblank

7/1/2026 at 1:37:56 PM

No you can look down on "us." Just maybe come up with a better plan next time on how to get the non-fascists in power than high-IQ semi-polite versions of calling the voters retards / immoral / horrible while verbatim and literally saying you don't want their votes. If that's what you do, a fascist will come along and come up with a better plan.

You can sit in your tower of better/worse ranking game all you want, you probably are better than "us" but you can't just rest on the fact that you're better and that's going to get you to the finish line.

by mothballed

6/30/2026 at 10:23:00 PM

> You've answered the question as to why those people didn't support you

I asked no such question. You said:

> It's not hard to figure out, the fascists have been more explicitly welcoming to crypto freedom or at least put themselves out there to solicit that vote even if you claim their underlying policies aren't.

To which I said:

> If you back fascists to promote crypto, your values are fucked.

This is not a statement wondering why they didn't. I know why they didn't, even if I didn't directly say it. I'm saying here if your support for proper policies or candidates is contingent on their supporting your stupid shitcoins, then your values are fucked and I'm not interested in your conclusions as a result. Or to be more specific, if you're prepared to give Fascists power because you think it'll be better for your coinbase account, your values are fucked.

And while there is certainly a cost to having principles, to say that Kamala didn't win because she refused to court crypto is just ridiculously out-of-touch. That's a big question with a lot of variables, but I assure you things like:

1) Her being a woman

2) Her being non-white

3) Her being yet another pro-corpo do-nothing Democrat, with a back story including being a PROSECUTOR of all things

Had a shitload, a metric assload, an utter container-ship load more to do with her defeat than anything even tangentially related to your weird secondary finance system, and on that point I would bet a lot of REAL, not crypto, currency.

And here's the part you're missing about Trump and his ilk "showing up": that offer means nothing. Fascist regimes don't keep promises to their useful idiots, they keep them right up until they're not useful anymore. They'll feed your crypto conartists to the same wolves they'll feed me to, because nobody wins long-term under fascism, including the fascists who aren't currently holding the leash. Ross Ulbricht's pardon doesn't tell you Trump loves crypto freedom, it tells you Trump knows how to make a low-cost gesture to a bloc he needs this cycle. And frankly it tracks well that crypto holders were targeted by the Trump admin anyway, you're a self-selecting bloc of marks, ready and eager to hold ANOTHER bag to go with the one you've statistically speaking, already got.

But far more importantly: Fascists are not shy about the Fascist shit they aim to do, namely to harm people at scale. If you cosign that for bitcoin, I'm not here to persuade you or win your heart: that is not a position that a reasonable person takes, and so I see no purpose in attempting to reason with you.

by ToucanLoucan

6/30/2026 at 11:49:15 PM

1) The question I refer to is the ancestor to which our comments are under. A question under which we are responding, but not a question authored by you.

2) My apologies for not being more explicit -- the specifics of the loss of the "libertarian" "crypto bros" is not a wholistic cause but rather a small fraction of the cause but more importantly also a symptom. A symptom of something that happened in broader society of alienated or ignored voters being hoodwinked by smooth talking fascists that showed up with a message more enticing than "we don't want your vote" or "you're a self-selecting bloc of marks" or "your values are fucked." You can hate they're that dumb, or that immoral, or what not but at the end of the day their vote still counts as much as yours.

by mothballed

6/30/2026 at 6:14:38 PM

[flagged]

by mythrwy

6/30/2026 at 6:31:34 PM

Damn, you got them all, there's been no rise of right wing populism glorifying hitler, the end of democratic institutions, the rise of dictatorial leaders, and expulsion of "foreigners" up to and including concentration camps at all recently, its just all losers with purple hair screeching.

by hilariously

6/30/2026 at 6:57:48 PM

How are you this confident while being this ignorant?

by gverrilla

6/30/2026 at 6:28:42 PM

It may make you uncomfortable to learn this but fascists - actual ones - are currently active in politics! My hair isn't dyed, for what it's worth.

We could argue over the definition of fascism and which politicians fit it which might be more productive than accusing posters of being depressed.

by kg

6/30/2026 at 7:24:16 PM

Fascism is a political phenomenon of the early twentieth century. There are no current politicians who are operating in the early twentieth century. So, to speak of “currently active fascists” is anachronistic. Typically at some point in the discussion someone will cite Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism, but other people do not have to accept his extension of the term past its sell-by date.

For the people currently active in politics who espouse heinous policies sometimes (and sometimes not) reminiscent of fascism, then advocate against those policies directly. Using such a vague umbrella term, and one interpreted by many as a distinct cultural shibboleth, isn’t likely to win over the people you need in order to prevail.

by TFNA

6/30/2026 at 8:22:36 PM

With that line of thinking, you can attribute any ideology to a time period and declare it invalid today.

Professor Jason Stanley who has written two books about the topic calls the current US administration fascist. Similar with professor Timothy Snyder and I think several other respected historians.

by saulapremium

7/1/2026 at 2:35:10 PM

What exactly is your motivation for rejecting the term?

Do you wish to make a constructive point about how we can work to stop this push for tech-autocratic-authoritarianism, and how we need to approach it a little differently than if it were simply fascism?

Or are you just denying that this current movement rhymes with a powerful cultural touchstone, to stymie those who would oppose it?

by mindslight

7/1/2026 at 4:33:33 PM

When your post history is largely political battle (and apparently in contravention of HN guidelines), you’re obviously not asking that question in good faith but rather as some attempt at rhetorical oneupmanship.

by TFNA

7/1/2026 at 5:50:15 PM

The tech industry has created a lot of societal problems that unfortunately now rest solely on politics. The dynamic was much nicer years ago, before billions of dollars were pouring into building wholly non-consensual surveillance systems, when it was possible to focus on constructive code-based approaches to avoiding this control. For example with mere web surveillance on the open web, you could squint and see that it was possible to choose alternatives, use a secure browser, etc. But obviously this doesn't apply to things like ANPR and remote attestation.

I am asking the question in good faith - to see if there is constructive conversation to be had rather than merely quibbling over terminology. That is positively in the spirit of the HN guidelines.

Also I take issue with your characterization of "battle". I am more than willing to entertain political positions that I disagree with. The problem is that I've found very few people who are willing to be honest (including with themselves) and own up to the implications of what they're advocating.

by mindslight

6/30/2026 at 7:17:08 PM

That is one option.

Another is we discuss actual policy positions rather than using presumed pejoratives to brand everyone who doesn't agree with us as "literally Hitler!".

by mythrwy

6/30/2026 at 6:29:23 PM

Fascist is descriptive and makes perfect sense here

by dgellow

6/30/2026 at 7:06:06 PM

Seriously.

Moldbug (Yarvin), who is intellectually upstream of the tech-authoritarian movement, explicitly claimed the term reactionary and spent so many words strawmanning concerns about fascism he de facto claimed that term as well. And either term is a hell of a lot more accurate than "conservative", which [unfortunately] continues to be in use as an emotional fig leaf over what is actually a radical agenda of destruction.

by mindslight

6/30/2026 at 6:18:45 PM

Every time I see someone pearl-clutching about speaking honestly about fascists, my mental picture is unsympathetic as well. "Fascist" may be inflammatory but it's certainly not inaccurate. Fascists are a real part of the world, trying to language police them away doesn't work.

by nemo

6/30/2026 at 5:32:46 PM

if you're in with the fascists they are the most liberty-oriented party. you can do whatever you want, entirely without regard to the law.

by ratelimitsteve

6/30/2026 at 6:24:45 PM

But this has never been true. Lots of valuable, productive, and loyal Nazis ended up in political prisoner camps.

Because that kind of kleptocracy runs on constantly fighting factions and incentives and selfishness. The core belief is selling someone else down the river because you can.

by mrguyorama

6/30/2026 at 8:36:16 PM

But they all think it will not be them. Just like in Putins Russia.

by victorbjorklund

6/30/2026 at 7:43:17 PM

And as if to sprinkle salt on the wounds, the Supreme court today allowed unlimited spending by political parties 'in coordination with allied interests(read the money class)' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734220

Moneyed interests have always jockeyed for power, but earlier they were held somewhat in check by Congress which had to listen somewhat to voters. With Citizens united in 2010 and corporate media driving polarization to new heights, big money has been able to drown out ordinary voters at at unprecedented scale.

No wonder, the 1% have never had it so good, when they can literally buy the govt they want. Looks like we're headed back to the gilded age and robber barons.

by khriss

7/1/2026 at 1:37:32 AM

Yes that spending has been very helpful in keeping all these far left candidates from winning their primaries. It seems like the only thing that matters in politics is money.

by DiscourseFan

7/1/2026 at 4:28:44 PM

And yet, all the spending couldn't dent DSAs huge gains in NYC and now Colorado.

US apparently still has a functioning democracy, at least when candidates ignore the consultants and insiders and speak straight to the voters. Worked for Trump after all, remember that in 2016 the establishment was against him. Sure he's rich but that's not why he "won" (popular vote aside :( )

Just like Maga/populist right, the left can beat the billionaires if they're willing to take the message to the people.

by spopejoy

7/1/2026 at 2:30:23 PM

It's not the only thing but it helps. Kamala was being praised for raising almost a billion dollars. The dems spent more money in presidential elections than republicans.

Where money goes further is being able to get attention. If the performance on TV, ads, roadshows is stronger than the other candidate you win.

Politics so so much about showmanship.

Elon with his Nazi salute even though many perceived as negative, it got him lots of attention in Media to be talk of town.

One thing going for Trump is he understands entertainment and attention. Positive or negative, he is center stage in news.

by nojvek

7/1/2026 at 3:03:43 AM

> the 1%

Nit, you're the 1%. The ones you're talking about are 0.001% or so.

by never_inline

6/30/2026 at 8:25:03 PM

The 1% are just along for the ride, having a good time. The 0.001% are calling the shots now.

by actionfromafar

6/30/2026 at 8:32:23 PM

Distract the masses with the 'birthright citizenship' ruling, while simultaneously giving the 1% what they paid for: more influence over elections/legislation. 4D chess.

by jimt1234

6/30/2026 at 9:31:45 PM

Birthright citizenship is not a distraction

by estearum

6/30/2026 at 11:14:18 PM

Well it’s by definition a distraction as it sucks all the air out of the newsroom. Doesn’t mean it’s not important just that it’s such a big story that any other rulings are gonna fly under the radar.

by soupfordummies

7/1/2026 at 12:13:36 AM

Yes, I suppose by that same definition 9/11 or World War 2 were the distractions of their time. Makes sense.

(Hint: that's not a useful nor typical definition of distraction)

by estearum

7/1/2026 at 1:17:27 AM

Yeah fair enough at least NYT was giving it sub-headline status a bit ago

by soupfordummies

6/30/2026 at 5:20:34 PM

Andreessen Horowitz - $51.65m... are they the Goldman Sachs (Vampire Squid) of the Tech world?

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-grea...

by khurs

6/30/2026 at 7:05:43 PM

Has a16z already boasted about this investment, or is that podcast episode coming out later this year?

by xpct

6/30/2026 at 6:20:35 PM

Honestly, that comparison is insulting to Goldman Sachs. Goldman at least sometimes provides funding for things beneficial to humanity: infrastructure projects, small business loans, and the like. A16Z has transitioned fully to various incarnations of casino apps and getting rich by getting people addicted to gambling, they are a purely negative force in the world with no upside whatsoever.

by Analemma_

6/30/2026 at 6:47:59 PM

Show me something Goldman has done that wasn't for the return %.

by snypher

6/30/2026 at 6:51:26 PM

That's not what I argued and you are misrepresenting my point. My argument is that, at least sometimes, Goldman invests in positive-sum trades which make the world better off, even if they extract too much for themselves in fees and leverage. By contrast, the various investments A16Z makes are negative-sum and only manage to make the world worse.

by Analemma_

6/30/2026 at 8:31:17 PM

Putting a face on "externalizing costs".

by actionfromafar

6/30/2026 at 6:36:44 PM

[flagged]

by 2748484848

6/30/2026 at 6:41:33 PM

cool it with the false claims of antisemitism...

by khurs

6/30/2026 at 5:04:42 PM

Crypto firms have supplied more than one-third of all corporate money so far in this year's elections

Fairshake has received $82 million in contributions this cycle

Crypto, AI, big tech and online betting firms have spent $294 million combined on 2026 elections

June 30 (Reuters) - Cryptocurrency companies have spent $189 million so far to influence the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, outpacing their spending for the previous election cycle, according to a new report, opens new tab from Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization. More than one-third of all corporate money contributed to this year's November elections, and primary elections leading up to them, has come from the crypto industry, making it the top corporate political spender, the group said.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here. Crypto was also the top corporate donor in the 2024 election cycle, when it contributed $170 million and many of the congressional candidates it boosted won their races.

Companies in the artificial intelligence, big tech and online betting sectors have also contributed heavily. Combined with crypto, they have spent $294 million on the 2026 elections so far. In November, the full House of Representatives will be up for reelection, along with roughly a third of the Senate.

"The big takeaway is that corporate money is playing a bigger role than ever in our elections, and it's only expanding," said Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen and the author of the report.

by downrightmike

7/1/2026 at 1:52:00 AM

To make America great again, we need to rid private money from politics and election. A public pool should be established with well defined rules and transparency to fund election and campaign. It is a basic investment in healthy democracy.

by quantum_state

6/30/2026 at 5:18:02 PM

The fact that political spending is considered free speech in the US gives the rich and already powerful massive sway in the political system, it is basically tiled hard towards them. And then combined with how PACs hide their funding behind names like "Everyday Americans Making the World Better" when really it just wants to lessen online gambling laws for a billion dollar company, is just brutal. US politics is a dystopian future realized.

by bhouston

6/30/2026 at 7:57:16 PM

The decision to allow unlimited political donations in 2010 was certainly one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Care to guess who was behind it? Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. The same corrupt assholes who continue to fuck this country every single time they get the opportunity.

by IAmGraydon

6/30/2026 at 9:13:50 PM

>Roberts, Thomas, and Alito.

I wonder if an incoming next president can order those three to be jailed in an undisclosed offshore prison for "obvious corruption and abuse of power" and claim presidential immunity in the lawsuit that would follow, as it was clearly an official act of the presidency for which the illegal order was given.

They have given that power to the president, it seems?

by throwaway5473

6/30/2026 at 5:39:00 PM

Even crazier that they sway elections in districts they've never even visited nor intend to ever visit

by arealaccount

6/30/2026 at 5:30:08 PM

Enabled yet again, today, by the SCOTUS.

by buellerbueller

6/30/2026 at 6:23:14 PM

What I find mildly interesting is how the older money (eg, the Koch brothers) spent decades creating the current environment (between deregulation on business, cutting taxes on the wealthy, and political ventures like the Federalist Society and Heritage, Inc), but it's come together to create a newer group of rich jerks who are really exploiting it to the hilt.

by saalweachter

6/30/2026 at 7:04:08 PM

I recall that this outcome (today's rich jerks exploiting it to the hilt) was what was predicted all along.

by buellerbueller

6/30/2026 at 7:38:30 PM

Political spending is perhaps the most important kind of free speech.

It cost money to print copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. The New York Times gets into politics quite a bit and is published by a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Where in the Constitution is that activity protected from the government but the First Amendment?

by twoodfin

7/1/2026 at 3:05:02 PM

Some day soon, perhaps we can vote cryptographically (whether or not on a blockchain – not necessary, just need private-key-signing abilities for each voter)... instead of being required in-person, as some archaic states do. Have some sort of in-person option (to vote without knowing how to hash keys... on-site, they'll do this for you after verifying ID). In the interim, more states need vote-by-mail.

----

Really happy with Monday's SCOTUS ruling that strengthens states' mail-in ballot programs, which ruled that votes are valid as long as they are postmarked on (or before) Election Day.

<Watson v. RNC>

It's a step in the right direction.

by ProllyInfamous

6/30/2026 at 10:54:18 PM

This just came out: Trump reports more than $1.4 billion in income from crypto ventures [1]. He received more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture he and his sons co-founded. Trump reported another $635 million from the sale of his $TRUMP meme coins.

$TRUMP meme coin shot up to $75 two days after launch. It has lost most of its value [2]. Guess who got rich off the people who invested in $TRUMP coin?

A UAE-linked investment firm acquired a 49% stake in Trump's World Liberty Financial for $500 million just before Trump's January 2025 inauguration, directing significant upfront payments to Trump family entities.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-reports-more-than-14-...

[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/official-trump/

by petilon

6/30/2026 at 8:50:50 PM

There was a flight to quality (their first real test, in my opinion) back in February 2026 and... nobody bought Crypto. Crypto never recovered after that. It's a good time to be a lobbyist, but I don't think you can effectively legislate against the value of gold for any amount of money.

by hadlock

6/30/2026 at 5:22:28 PM

Is this a little or a lot? any idea how that compares to other industries and donors?

by BiraIgnacio

6/30/2026 at 6:50:18 PM

Paragraph #2 directly answers your question:

> More than one-third of all corporate money contributed to this year's November elections, and primary elections leading up to them, has come from the crypto industry, making it the top corporate political spender, the group said.

by gwbas1c

6/30/2026 at 7:15:54 PM

Only one-third? They are slowing down. Crypto companies accounted for almost half of corporate donations in the 2024 election cycle [1].

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/23/crypto-companies-are-pouring...

by petilon

6/30/2026 at 11:20:02 PM

My gut reaction to this was "Duh, the money is in AI now, leaving less for crypto".

Then I looked at the numbers.

TFA: $189M so far for 2026.

CNBC: $119M so far for 2024.

TFA has already surpassed the numbers for 2024! I don't know what to make of that other than a magnification of the ills in the American political system. And yeah, I'm sad crypto still has money even with all the snAIk oil going around. Turns out I don't really understand how money works at this scale.

Caveat lector: there's of course probably some explanation I missed. Like maybe we're counting firms that has double-dipped in crypto and AI.

by yallpendantools

7/1/2026 at 1:29:43 AM

Definitely a lot.. thanks, missed that

by BiraIgnacio

6/30/2026 at 5:51:13 PM

someone below is saying it's over a third of all spending so far. which feels like a lot to me.

by ratelimitsteve

6/30/2026 at 5:59:53 PM

When it's from an industry consisting 100% of organized crime and negative-sum grifting, it's a lot.

I'd read a donation with "from the oil industry" and "from The Organization Of Stealing All Copper from Public Spaces" as different types of "bad", even if I'd prefer that the oil industry also not buy politicians.

For the avoidance of doubt, blockchain people are the copper thieves.

by knorker

6/30/2026 at 5:31:24 PM

It almost doesn't matter? If it was less than other industries doesn't make it okay. I like any/all callouts of industries and their political "donations". Its all so ridiculous.

by thehoff

6/30/2026 at 6:33:19 PM

I guess the threat of this is what's unclear. The cryptobros are going to take over the world and then do what exactly?

by pooploop64

6/30/2026 at 7:05:52 PM

Yeah I guess poor wording on my part. It does matter. My point was even if its a lot less than other industries that doesn't negate what's happening here.

by thehoff

6/30/2026 at 7:43:05 PM

Looks a little bit sensational and .. very much misleading

1- The largest donor, a16z is certainly invested in Crypto, but that's a venture capital firm, not crypto firm.

2- Fairshake PAC is basically a Crypto PAC, so it's obvious that Crypto firms are funding that PAC, right. I quote Wikipedia:

> Fairshake is a Super PAC funded by the cryptocurrency industry that supported pro-cryptocurrency candidates in the 2024 United States elections.[2][3][4][5] Major contributors include Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz.[6] Fairshake spent nearly twice as much on Republican candidates than on Democratic candidates.[7]

That PAC doesn't look like they are ideologically oriented, they just care about whether a candidate is pro crypto or not, whether it's dems or reps.

3- Leading the Future is not even a Crypto PAC at all, it's an AI PAC

by WinstonSmith84

6/30/2026 at 8:12:16 PM

> That PAC doesn't look like they are ideologically oriented, they just care about whether a candidate is pro crypto or not

Surely the more disturbing thing is that they're spending money at all.

In the olden days a CEO would ring up a politician and say something like "if you vote for this bill, my 50,000 employees in your state will not be happy" — a sizable voting bloc gave those execs power.

Now the crypto companies say "if you vote for this bill, my 1,000 employees in your state will not be happy..." — less compelling, voting-bloc wise — "...and also I will donate millions to your opponent in the primary"

by muglug

6/30/2026 at 5:43:17 PM

Rookie numbers.

by shemnon42

6/30/2026 at 5:23:45 PM

As far as the US is concerned, given how badly bitcoin has done since Trump was inaugurated, the worst performing asset class by far, I would say the ROI has been pretty bad. Industries and sectors that donated nothing still got bailouts and other initiatives, such as AI, quantum, metals, and semiconductors. Noting for crypto donors. No bailouts, or even mentions on twitter. Politicians can take money but they don't have to honor their end of the deal to give anything in return.

by paulpauper

6/30/2026 at 6:05:10 PM

The bitcoin people bought a pardon for their hero, one of the biggest facilitators of drug smuggling in the world, and someone who personally paid money to have people killed. Including explicitly saying to indiscriminately kill whatever unrelated bystander happens to be there.

That was a stated goal for them, and they got what they paid for. So good ROI on that.

They've gotten PAAAAH-LENTY for their money.

Did they get their pet asset to go up in price? No. But they managed to buy "crime is legal now". The shitcoin rugpull industry is making BANK, and the DOJ has been paid off to look the other way.

Investigations have been shut down, and mobsters have been freed. They are not the losers. Society is.

by knorker

6/30/2026 at 7:03:06 PM

Ross Ulbricht being let go as part of some quid pro quo with crypto-libertarians was certainly a huge miscarriage of justice. He should not be walking free, but alas.

by TheAmazingRace

6/30/2026 at 5:35:16 PM

But is that also accounting for any regulatory pressure/investigations that might have otherwise hit those donors? Perhaps just the promise of not being prosecuted for their crimes if/when their scam collapses is sufficient ROI for them.

by hgoel

6/30/2026 at 5:58:21 PM

that and directing US dollars into crypto markets via the government. you can sell people on the idea with the same arguments that are currently moderately successful in convincing people to do things like buy gold as a retirement plan, and anyone who is holding crypto before the government "invests" in it will see incredible returns as demand spikes for an asset whose supply is intentionally capped. The crypto whales are suddenly in the presence of a crypto leviathan in the form of government spending, they not only make a ton of money but they can sell out without crashing the market (solving a huge problem, esp for shitcoin whales but realistically for major stakeholders in all crypto) and everyone who's actually involved in the decision-making process leaves with fistfuls of money from people who didn't meaningfully have a say in which bag they'd be purchasing or at what price.

by ratelimitsteve

6/30/2026 at 5:58:47 PM

Some of them have gotten out of jail.

by Finnucane

6/30/2026 at 5:49:01 PM

Yeah but Justin Sun is a stable genius, losing tons of money is just part of his 4D chess.

by doctorpangloss

6/30/2026 at 6:07:17 PM

They got Ross Ulbricht out of jail and a few cryptocurrency scammers out too. That’s all the cryptobros wanted was pretty much nothing but symbolism.

by righthand

6/30/2026 at 6:00:34 PM

I mean, anyone can fail to deliver their end of any agreement. They may have learned a harsh lesson about bargaining with Trump, but that doesn't mean that it was dumb to pursue the deal as negotiated or would be dumb to pursue a similar deal with someone who might actually follow through on it.

by ratelimitsteve

6/30/2026 at 8:06:12 PM

I spent nothing on US election this year and nothing in all previous years.

Partly, because I am not from US, but largely because I have no interests to lobby!

Are elections that run on donations can be considered truly democratic?

by nullorempty

6/30/2026 at 8:44:07 PM

So are you telling me that a certain country that banned Crypto entirely might have been right?

by kiproping

6/30/2026 at 7:18:27 PM

It can't be worse than the banks.

It's a shame the crypto industry is so scummy it makes people avoid real improvements on the monetary system made by Monero.

by Cider9986

6/30/2026 at 8:17:08 PM

We know that it is much, much worse than the banks.

by nyeah

6/30/2026 at 8:26:38 PM

From a privacy and freedom perspective, crypto in general is a big improvement on banks. Monero is the perfected implementation of cryptocurrency.

Banks hold your funds, lock you out of accounts, file reports on you, share every transaction with the government, scam you in interest, ask you what your using your money for, require invasive services to use their apps, require invasive biometrics, hoard your identity data and sell it, target ads to you, close your account if you're deemed to be high risk, implement atrocious security.

by Cider9986

6/30/2026 at 8:33:28 PM

I'll pick one incorrect claim out of many: Public ledger systems have no privacy at all, by design. You can hope nobody knows which wallet is yours, but that's not serious privacy. Today that's not even really hide-it-from-your-kid-brother privacy.

by nyeah

6/30/2026 at 8:46:32 PM

I expressly mentioned Monero, which doesn't have a transparent ledger. It's fungible, like cash. Even Bitcoin is pseudonymous, so definitely has cons in terms of privacy compared to banks, but also benefits. Monero is completely private.

What are the other errors in my critique of banks?

Will you explain how Monero is worse than banks?

by Cider9986

6/30/2026 at 10:03:07 PM

You claimed:

>crypto in general is a big improvment on banks

I responded to your claim. If you feel you can defend your claim, go ahead. If your only response is to change the subject, ok. That's your call.

by nyeah

6/30/2026 at 11:56:06 PM

You disinterpreted my claim and chose the weakest part of my comment to respond to. You responded to an argument I didn't even make.

by Cider9986

7/1/2026 at 12:56:04 AM

In my opinion, you shouldn't have posted a false claim.

by nyeah

7/1/2026 at 10:28:00 PM

[dead]

by Cider9986

6/30/2026 at 5:59:39 PM

"Very legal and very cool"

by baggachipz