Deep Reflection on Encryption Technology Policy

In recent years, cryptocurrency has become an important topic for policymakers. Governments around the world are considering implementing relevant regulations to regulate blockchain business participants. While some bills are reasonable, there are also concerns that the government may take extreme measures, such as classifying most tokens as securities or banning self-custody wallets.

In this context, some people have started to decide their votes based on candidates' attitudes towards encryption currencies. However, I believe this practice may contradict the values that originally attracted people to the encryption field.

Encryption technology should not be limited to cryptocurrencies and blockchain. The cypherpunk movement that originally created encryption technology represents a broader spirit of technological liberalism, aimed at protecting and enhancing individual freedom through open technology. Early focuses included resisting restrictive copyright legislation, with seed networks and internet anonymization becoming important tools.

Bitcoin is seen as an extension of this spirit in the field of payments. However, it is important to note that money is just one of the areas where decentralized networks can be applied. In fact, there are some more fundamental freedoms such as freedom of communication and privacy, user-friendly digital identities, freedom of thought, and access to high-quality information.

If you are involved in cryptocurrency, it is likely because there are deeper fundamental goals beyond just supporting the cryptocurrency itself. We should focus on those fundamental goals and the entire set of policy implications they entail.

Internationalism is also a principle that the cypherpunks have always cherished. The internet and cryptocurrency help to establish a more equal globalized digital society, promoting the flattening of the global economy. Therefore, we should also judge politicians based on their level of attention to the external world.

Moreover, being friendly towards cryptocurrency now does not mean it will always be so in the future. It is worth examining politicians' past positions on cryptocurrency and related topics, especially in areas where "support for freedom" is inconsistent with "support for corporations." This helps to predict their future shifts in perspective.

There may be a divergence between decentralization and acceleration. Typically, regulation is harmful to both, but these goals may also conflict. It is important to explore the potential values of politicians to understand which side they would prioritize in times of conflict.

We should also be wary of the "cryptocurrency-friendly" postures of dictatorial governments. They may support the use of cryptocurrency to circumvent restrictions, but at the same time oppose citizens using cryptocurrency to escape surveillance. If a politician is keen on power or pleasing the powerful, this might be their future stance on cryptocurrency.

Ultimately, our words and actions will influence multiple aspects of the political game. By supporting a candidate solely for "supporting encryption," we may be fostering a misguided incentive mechanism. Instead, we should clearly indicate that we support politicians who have the right vision for technology, politics, and economic development, not just because they support encryption.