Crypto's Political Voice At Stake, Berkeley Scholar Warns
A Berkeley Law lecturer warns that the largest crypto firms are trying to claim the industry's political voice this election cycle. For anyone holding tokens in a wallet, that fight decides whose interests get written into future crypto rules.
What actually happened
Hermine Wong, a lecturer at Berkeley Law, published an opinion piece on CoinDesk on 2 November 2026. She wrote, 'Our loyalty has been to the technology. This election, the trap is to let the biggest intermediaries claim it for themselves.' Wong argues crypto's political identity is now contested between the technology's original design and the companies that dominate the space commercially. She does not name specific firms, donations, or races. Her warning centers on one point: large intermediaries, not individual holders or builders, risk becoming the voice that represents crypto in political decisions this cycle. The piece offers no further detail on amounts spent or candidates involved.
How we got here
Crypto's founding pitch was removing middlemen, exchanges, custodians, and political gatekeepers included. As the industry grew, a handful of large companies took over much of its public messaging and lobbying. Wong does not list which firms or donations she has in mind. Instead, she points to a long-standing tension: a technology meant to cut out intermediaries now has some of its loudest voices coming from the biggest companies, not from individual wallet holders. She frames this election as the moment that tension turns into a real choice, between corporate-scale crypto and the broader base of everyday users and builders.
Why this matters for you
For everyday wallet users, this matters even without a political stake. Rules on taxation, custody, or market structure could end up shaped by whichever voice wins this fight. If large intermediaries dominate, policy may favor corporate platforms over open, self-custody tools, the kind bonuz and similar wallet apps rely on. Builders face a similar question: when regulators ask who represents a project, does that mean the protocol's design or the company that made it popular. Wong's piece suggests big firms and the industry's original decentralized goals do not always align, something worth watching for anyone who holds tokens outside an exchange.
The bigger question
Wong's piece raises a question bigger than one election: once an industry builds systems to remove middlemen, who should speak for it if middlemen exist anyway. Should political voice scale with company size, user numbers, or something else. There is no clean answer yet, and the question will likely return every time a new election puts crypto policy on the table.
What to watch
The opinion piece ran on 2 November 2026, during this election cycle's voting window. It names no specific dates, races, or companies. Wallet users should watch how crypto industry groups present themselves publicly as results arrive, and whether other commentators echo Wong's warning about intermediaries speaking for the whole industry.
