Hermine Wong, a lecturer at Berkeley Law, is warning that the crypto industry's scramble for political influence ahead of an upcoming election carries a built-in risk. In her telling, the biggest crypto intermediaries are trying to claim loyalty to the technology for themselves. That, she argues, is a trap.
Wong's assessment lands as major crypto companies court voter support, positioning themselves as the industry's political voice. The push is aimed at an upcoming election, though the specific contest and timing weren't detailed in the source material.
The loyalty problem
The core of Wong's argument is about ownership. Crypto intermediaries — the exchanges, custodians and platforms that sit between users and the underlying technology — are presenting themselves as the face of the industry. Wong says that framing lets them claim loyalty to the technology itself.
That's a problem because the technology and the companies built on top of it aren't the same thing. An intermediary can fail, change its terms, or pivot its business model without the underlying protocol changing at all. When a company wraps itself in the flag of the technology, users can end up conflating the two.
Wong calls the dynamic a trap. The word choice is deliberate. It suggests the industry's political strategy may be doing damage even as it wins friends in Washington and on the campaign trail.
Courting voters, not just regulators
The political push Wong is describing isn't limited to lobbying offices or regulatory comment letters. Crypto companies are seeking voter support, a broader play that runs through campaign messaging and public positioning.
That's a shift in posture. For years the industry's political energy went toward regulators and lawmakers who write the rules. Voter-facing campaigns are a different game, one that requires the industry to present a coherent public identity.
Wong's warning suggests that identity is being built around the wrong thing. If intermediaries become the public face of crypto, the technology's reputation gets tied to their fortunes.
Why the timing matters
The election is coming up, and crypto companies are making their bets now. Political capital is being spent, and public positions are being staked out.
Wong's argument implies a risk that isn't obvious in the middle of a campaign. Winning voter support by presenting intermediaries as the industry's true representatives could leave the technology itself exposed if those companies stumble or face backlash.
There's also a credibility question. Voters who back crypto because an exchange told them to may not distinguish between the company and the asset when things go wrong. The trap Wong describes is that the industry may end up owning the consequences of a political strategy built on the wrong messenger.
The upcoming election will test whether that strategy works. What it won't settle is the underlying question Wong raises: who gets to speak for the technology, and whether the companies that profit from it should be the ones defining its public identity.
