Coinbase-affiliated advocacy group endorses candidates for US midterms

We are entering the home stretch of the US election cycle, and the noise is hitting a fever pitch. If you have been following the industry for more than a week, you know the narrative: crypto is now a political force. The latest move comes from Stand With Crypto, the advocacy group born out of Coinbase, which has just officially thrown its weight behind a slate of candidates for the upcoming midterms.

The goal they have stated is clear and ambitious. They want to seat what they call the most pro-crypto Congress in history. For those of us actually building products, writing code, and trying to navigate the mess of current regulations, this sounds like a win. But as someone who has seen these cycles play out before, I think we need to peel back the layers on what an endorsement actually buys us.

The Weight of the Endorsement

Stand With Crypto isn't just a mailing list. It has grown into a massive database of verified voters who have explicitly said their ballot depends on a candidate's stance on digital assets. When they endorse a politician, they are signaling to a highly motivated, financially literate group of people exactly where to put their vote.

For the candidates, this is a lifeline. In a tight race, the "crypto voter" is no longer a myth. It is a demographic that cuts across traditional party lines. You have libertarian-leaning Republicans and tech-forward Democrats both vying for this support because it comes with two things politicians crave: funding and focused attention.

From a founder's perspective, this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, having a Congress that doesn't view every smart contract as a security threat is a massive upgrade. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves what these politicians actually understand about the tech versus what they are saying to get the check.

The Founder Perspective: Utility vs. Optics

When I look at these lists of endorsed candidates, I am not just looking for a "pro-crypto" badge. I am looking for people who understand the difference between a speculative memecoin and a decentralized infrastructure project. The reality is that most politicians are still in the "number go up" phase of their crypto education.

If you are building a dApp or a new protocol, you don't just need a cheerleader in Washington. You need someone who understands why private keys matter and why burdensome reporting requirements for developers are a death sentence for innovation. An endorsement from an advocacy group is a start, but it doesn't replace the need for deep, technical lobbying that goes beyond soundbites.

Why the Midterms Matter More Than the Presidency

Everyone focuses on the White House, but for the builder community, the midterms are where the real work happens. The committees that oversee the SEC and the CFTC are filled with people who stay in power long after a President leaves. These are the people who draft the actual language of the bills that will determine if your startup can stay in the US or if you have to move to Dubai or Singapore.

Stand With Crypto is focusing on these down-ballot races because that is where the regulatory friction is highest. By targeting these seats, they are trying to create a legislative firewall. If the House and Senate have a bipartisan majority that favors clear rules of the road, the individual whims of an aggressive regulator become much easier to manage.

The Skeptic's Corner

I promised you an honest look, so here it is: politicians are excellent at promising the world when they want your vote and delivering very little once the session starts. We have seen "pro-tech" candidates flip the script the moment a headline turns negative. Just because a candidate is on the Stand With Crypto list today doesn't mean they won't vote for a restrictive tax bill tomorrow if the political winds shift.

As builders, we cannot outsource our political agency to a single group, even one as well-funded as this. We have to keep the pressure on. An endorsement is a job interview, not a guarantee of performance. We should be looking at these candidates and asking: what is your specific plan to protect open-source developers? How do you view the role of self-custody? If they can't answer those, the "pro-crypto" tag is just marketing.

What This Means for the Builders

So, what do you actually do with this information? If you are a founder, you should be looking at the specific candidates in the districts where you live and work. Don't just take the endorsement at face value. Look at their voting record on general tech and privacy issues. Usually, a candidate who is good on privacy is someone who will eventually get the importance of crypto.

Secondly, realize that this level of organized advocacy is a sign of maturity for our industry. We are finally playing the game by the rules that Washington understands. Money, organization, and voting blocks. It might feel "dirty" compared to the pure ethos of decentralization, but it is the price of entry if we want to stop being the punching bag for regulators.

• Check the candidates in your specific jurisdiction.
• Look for nuance in their statements—avoid the ones who only talk about price.
• Support organizations that are doing the hard work of educating these staffers.

The biggest risk to the industry isn't a lack of support; it's a lack of understanding from those who claim to support us.

The Takeaway

Stand With Crypto’s endorsement push is a necessary move to bring stability to the US market, but it is not a silver bullet. As builders, we should be glad the industry is finally organized, but we must remain skeptical of the political class. A pro-crypto Congress is a tool, not a solution. The solution still lies in building things that are so useful and so decentralized that they become impossible to regulate out of existence. Use the political momentum to buy yourself time to build, but don't count on Washington to save you.

Read the original at Cointelegraph →