Reasonable Crypto Debate – Michael Casey

[ad_1]

Crypto in the United States is more polarized and politicized than ever.

Ironically, this is a sign that problems with this technology have become less of a fringe concern for ordinary Americans. As Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Signals Bitcoin Loyalty During Launch Of His Presidential Bid And President Biden Accuses Republicans Of Protecting Crypto Traders During Debt Ceiling Negotiations, Crypto attracts attention and, for it, is rewarded with the same divisive treatment as other mainstreams. the subjects. What should be a detached technical discussion of the pros and cons of policy options is now loaded with emotion and exaggeration, with the result that a genuine public understanding of the promises and dangers of technologies seems even less accessible.

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. Subscribe to receive the full newsletter here.

As we know from the broader political arena, social media is a major contributor to this problem. Right-wing and left-wing provocateurs peddle alarmist exaggerations about their opponents and simplistic bromide solutions. It’s a proven way to build the real power currency of our time: online attention.

The result is a society incapable not only of compromise, but even of leaving room for an informed examination of the facts. It’s not that the discussion is consumed by outright lies and misinformation, although there’s a lot of that, it’s that every debate seems incapable of progressing beyond a superficial state. A complex reality cannot be summed up in 140 characters. Yet it is in the complexity where to find the truth.

This is the larger context in which the crypto discussion seems trapped at the moment. People love or hate crypto, with strong but often misinformed opinions. There seems to be less willingness on both sides to understand the other’s position and little search for compromise.

If you’re reading this column, you’re probably into crypto. So you might be inclined to blame politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Gary Gensler, whose hardline stances have played into an increasingly hostile posture against tech. progressive democrats. It’s understandable. (I’m guilty of the same instinct.) But just doing it doesn’t help. It takes two sides to create a toxic discourse.

The industry must figure out how to converse with its detractors. Less Twitter, perhaps, more real-world interactions.

The trio traveled to Dresden, New York, home of Greenidge Generations’ bitcoin mining operation, which has become a lightning rod in the broader debate over the environmental impact of bitcoin and, in particular , political battles over New York States decided last year to impose a ban on new mining projects. They found that both sides had made grossly exaggerated claims about the harms or benefits of Operation Greenidges. New York Congresswoman Anna Kelles, a Democrat, has repeatedly incorrectly claimed that the facility is heating nearby Seneca Lake and killing aquatic life. At the same time, many mining advocates greatly overstate the benefits to the community, such as the number of jobs created.

Most strikingly, the article quoted Dresden Mayor William Hall as saying that prior to CoinDesks’ visit, he had never been contacted by any journalist, lobbyist or politician about Greenidge, whether he was to the bitcoin advocacy community or critics who claim it harms the local environment. .

The idea that a multifaceted experience of entire cities with an industry can be ignored as competing factions in a larger national debate create alternative, fact-starved abstractions of this reality is a real sign that an issue has become politicized. .

While procedural gridlock has prevented Congress from passing clarifying legislation for this industry and emotions have been stirred by the ignominious collapse of major political donor Sam Bankman Frieds FTX Exchange, the bipartisan spirit that once existed around crypto on Capitol Hill has, sadly, evaporated. Although there are still plenty of supporters on the left, the criticism increasingly resembles a Democratic stance, while the advocacy belongs to Republicans. Little good can come out of this division.

As I mentioned, the blame for this lies with both sides. So, as a thoughtful and well-meaning member of the crypto community, what can you do to help?

Well, for starters, take a look at the upcoming Consensus@Consensus report, which CoinDesk will release next month. It will be the product of a deliberate effort to bring together competing voices at our Consensus event in Austin last month, to discuss and debate eleven fundamental questions for the industry and try to find a way forward.

More generally, we can all take stock of our behavior on social networks and elsewhere.

A few basic rules: Don’t be arrogant. Don’t be dismissive of your critics’ concerns. And most importantly, don’t be a troll.

Prime example of the latter: the parody video Riot Platforms released in response to a New York Times article about the environmental impact of bitcoin mining, which fueled a Biden administration proposal to tax the industry. The clip, which showed an official in security gear walking through Riots Texas facilities with a CO2 emissions meter to declare that Bitcoin mining emits zero carbon emissions, was satirical. It was far too smug a way for its own good to say that we shouldn’t be judging energy use choices, but rather looking at the carbon production at the source of that energy, in other words, Focus your attention on whether a Regions Grid uses either renewable energy or fossil fuels, not how its electricity is used.

The joke went over people’s heads; critics saw the character as an archetype of the bitcoin brother stereotype who ignorantly believes that a mining operation has a zero carbon footprint. Billions of people have extremely valid and pressing concerns about climate change, and the massive power consumption of Bitcoins is by no means a trivial issue. Did the Riot team believe that, rather than pissing off such people, this Borat-style exercise would enlighten them?

If you count yourself among the moderate majority open to compromise, resist the temptation to support extremists whose voices are too loud to rise above the din to be heard on either side of a polarized populace in search of watch out on social media. Even when they stream those one-off sound bites, don’t hit the “Like” button.

In summary, don’t be a troll and don’t feed the trolls.

[ad_2]