Someday, when an analysis is done of how the crypto industry positioned itself politically leading up to the 2024 election, it might read, “Crypto is proving itself to be the best funded and least politically sophisticated operation in town.”

Fairshake PAC, largely funded by industry giants like Brian Armstrong and Marc Andreessen, has presented itself as a supporter of the crypto industry in American politics. However, when Rep. Michelle Steel—a recipient of over $2 million from Fairshake and a self-proclaimed crypto ally—recently condemned her opponent for owning cryptocurrency, Fairshake stayed silent.

Consider the irony: Steel’s opponent likely holds his crypto assets in Coinbase, a U.S.-based, regulated wallet. Yet, Steel used crypto as a scare tactic, positioning it as something negative to sway voters. This silence from the industry is troubling. How does this align with the stance to “Stand With Crypto”?

This isn’t bipartisanship. If the crypto industry, or a few wealthy voices within it, commits solely to one party, they can expect loyalty like Steel’s—pro-crypto only until it’s convenient to be anti-crypto. Paying for political allegiance instead of fostering engagement and education leads to “supporters” who may quickly turn.

The industry must realize that bipartisan support is achievable, and both parties have advocates for crypto. But to strengthen this support, we need true bipartisan engagement and a commitment to education.

For companies advocating for crypto to “Be Purple,” this approach isn’t “purple.” Real bipartisanship would mean publicly holding Steel accountable for demonizing crypto or, if two pro-crypto candidates are running, supporting both—or staying neutral.

The choice is clear: we can mature as an industry by calling out bad behavior, or we can remain tied to figures like SBF, CZ, and Do Kwon in the public eye. Crypto industry leaders, who do you want to be?