The Stand With Crypto Alliance, backed by Coinbase, is on a mission to get presidential candidates talking about cryptocurrencies. The group's bus tour through five battleground states kicked off in Phoenix and Las Vegas, with a goal of registering voters and getting elected officials to support the sector. The alliance claims that bipartisan crypto legislation has already passed the House of Representatives, and more and more elected officials are coming out in support of crypto. But what if this assumption is wrong? What might the author have missed?

The bus tour is not just about raising awareness, but also about turning out the vote. The group has signed up 104,000 people through its voter registration tool, and has put on concerts and delivered speeches to throngs of fans. But is this really the most effective way to get people registered to vote? Shouldn't the focus be on educating people about the issues at stake, rather than just registering them to vote?

The alliance has given Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, "A" grades for their support of crypto, while giving Harris and running mate Tim Walz, governor of Minnesota, a grade of "N/A" and saying, "pending stance on crypto." But what about the other candidates? What about the issues that are not related to crypto? Are we really just going to focus on one issue and ignore everything else?

The Stand With Crypto Alliance is trying to get presidential candidates to talk about the issue, but what if they are not interested? What if they have more pressing concerns? Should we be trying to force them to talk about something they don't care about, or should we be focusing on issues that really matter to people?

Crypto Lobby's Bus Tour: A Last-Ditch Effort to Get Presidential Candidates Talking About Cryptocurrencies?

Actions