Colin McLaren of the Solana Policy Institute is telling the crypto industry not to change course. In an opinion piece published this week, McLaren argues that the sector's Washington playbook is working and should stay in place regardless of how the midterm elections shake out or who wins the presidency in 2028.
The argument is a direct pushback against the instinct to recalibrate strategy after every election cycle. McLaren's position: the playbook isn't the problem, so there's no reason to rewrite it.
The playbook, as McLaren sees it
McLaren doesn't treat the current approach as a bet on any one party. The piece frames the industry's lobbying and policy work as a long-game operation that has already produced results — enough that abandoning it after a bad election night would be a mistake.
That's a notable claim coming from someone inside a policy organization tied to a specific blockchain ecosystem. The Solana Policy Institute has its own stake in how crypto is regulated, and McLaren's piece reads as a defense of the incremental, Washington-centered strategy that much of the industry has adopted.
Midterms and 2028 as variables, not verdicts
The midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race are the two political events McLaren names as potential disruptors. His point is that they're variables the industry can't control — and shouldn't overreact to.
Plenty of crypto companies and trade groups have historically shifted their tone, their spending, or their public messaging depending on which party holds power. McLaren's advice runs the other way: keep the same approach whether the midterms go well or badly, and whether the next president is friendly to crypto or not.
It's a simple message, and that's probably the point. The piece isn't offering a new legislative ask or a fresh campaign. It's arguing for consistency.
Why the timing matters
Midterm cycles are when lobbying shops typically reassess. Donors write checks, trade associations set priorities, and everyone waits to see which committees flip. McLaren is making his case before that reassessment happens, not after.
There's also a practical angle. The crypto industry has spent years building relationships in Washington, and those relationships don't reset when control of Congress or the White House changes. McLaren's piece implicitly argues that the institutional knowledge and access built up so far are assets worth protecting — not things to throw out because of one election result.
Whether the rest of the industry listens is another question. Plenty of operators have shorter time horizons than a policy shop does.
What McLaren isn't saying
The piece doesn't name specific bills, agencies, or officials. It doesn't lay out a legislative timeline. And it doesn't promise that the playbook will produce wins in the next Congress.
What it does is set a marker: if the midterms go poorly for crypto-friendly candidates, or if the 2028 race puts an unfriendly administration in office, McLaren's position will be that the response should be more of the same — not a reset. That's a testable claim, and the midterms will be the first chance to see whether the industry actually holds the line.
