Swan CEO claims Twenty One serves Tether’s US political interests, calls Mallers’ role ‘ceremonial’

When Cory Klippsten talks, he usually isn't trying to make friends. As the CEO of Swan, he has carved out a niche as the guy willing to call out the parts of the industry that feel more like smoke and mirrors than actual infrastructure. His latest target isn't a failing exchange or a yield farm, but a new power move between two of the biggest names in the Bitcoin space: Tether and Jack Mallers.

The announcement of Twenty One Capital recently sent ripples through the industry. On the surface, it looks like a strategic bridge between the world's largest stablecoin provider and one of Bitcoin's most charismatic advocates. But Klippsten isn't buying the marketing. He argues that this isn't a partnership built on technical integration or even shared financial goals. Instead, he characterizes it as a calculated political instrument designed to buy influence where it matters most: Washington, D.C.

The Lobbying Machine

To understand why this matters, you have to look at the current state of Tether. They are the undisputed king of liquidity in the crypto world, but they are also a constant target for US regulators. Being headquartered outside the states gives them some protection, but it also creates a massive target on their back. If you are Tether, and your entire business model relies on the stability of the US dollar, you need friends in high places.

Klippsten suggests that Twenty One Capital is essentially Tether's US-based arm, specifically designed to navigate the political landscape. By creating a domestic entity, they can funnel resources into lobbying efforts and political contributions that would be legally or optically difficult for an offshore company. It is a play for legitimacy in a system that is increasingly hostile toward offshore stablecoin issuers.

For builders, this is a lesson in corporate structure. We often focus on the product-market fit, but at a certain scale, your biggest risk isn't competitors; it is legislation. Tether is playing a long-game defense by attempting to embed themselves into the machinery of American politics. Whether you like the company or not, you have to acknowledge the pragmatism of the move.

The Ceremonial Figurehead

Perhaps the most stinging part of Klippsten's critique is his assessment of Jack Mallers’ involvement. Mallers, the founder of Strike, has been the face of the Bitcoin payment revolution for years. He is energetic, young, and extremely vocal. However, Klippsten dismisses his role in Twenty One Capital as "ceremonial."

This is a cynical take on the influencer-heavy landscape of our industry. The suggestion is that Mallers provides the "cool factor" and the Bitcoin-only street cred, while the actual decisions and the heavy lifting—specifically the political maneuvering—are handled by Tether's leadership and leur legal teams. In this view, Mallers is the spokesperson, not the architect.

From a founder's perspective, this raises questions about personal brand equity. When you partner with a giant like Tether, do you maintain your autonomy, or do you become a shield? Mallers has built Strike into a legitimate competitor in the remittance space. If Klippsten's skepticism is right, the risk for Mallers is that his reputation becomes tied to the political outcomes of Tether's lobbying efforts, rather than the success of his own technology.

The Bitcoin Alignment Conflict

There is also a deeper ideological rift at play here. Native Bitcoiners, often referred to as "Maxis," have long had a complicated relationship with Tether. On one hand, Tether provides the liquidity that keeps the markets moving. On the other hand, it represents the very thing Bitcoin was meant to replace: a centralized, opaque financial tool that relies on the traditional dollar system.

Klippsten’s comments highlight the discomfort many in the Bitcoin space feel regarding this alliance. If the goal of Bitcoin is decentralization and transparency, an alliance with a company known for its lack of a comprehensive public audit feels like a step backward to some. It looks like the old guard of finance simply wearing a Bitcoin t-shirt.

For those of us building in this space, we have to decide where our loyalties lie. Are we building tools to bypass the political system, or are we building companies that need to lobby that system to survive? There is no easy answer, but pretending the political side doesn't exist is a recipe for failure.

What it Means for Builders

Most of us aren't running billion-dollar stablecoins, but the Tether/Twenty One Capital dynamic affects the entire ecosystem. If Tether successfully buys their way into political favor, it creates a moat that smaller, more transparent competitors will find hard to cross. It sets a precedent that the way to win in the US isn't necessarily through better tech, but through better connections.

We should be watching how this entity operates over the next year. Will Twenty One Capital actually produce new products, or will it simply show up in the donor lists of key congressional subcommittees? If the latter is true, it confirms the suspicion that the industry is entering a "pay to play" phase.

As founders, we need to focus on building resilience into our own projects. If the giants are busy fighting political battles and setting up ceremonial entities, there is an opportunity for those who stay lean and focused on actual utility. You don't need a lobbying arm if your product is indispensable to your users.

The reality of crypto in 2024 is that the line between a software company and a political action committee is getting very thin.

Klippsten might be labeled a hater by some, but his skepticism serves as a necessary check on the hype. It is easy to get swept up in the excitement of big names partnering up. It is much harder to look at the structure of those deals and ask who really benefits. In the case of Twenty One Capital, the beneficiaries seem to be in offices in D.C., not necessarily the developers building on the ground.

The Takeaway

Don't confuse marketing partnerships with institutional progress. Tether's push into the US via Twenty One Capital is a strategic survival move, likely using Jack Mallers' reputation as a bridge. For everyone else, it is a reminder that as crypto grows, it is beginning to look more like the political machine it once tried to disrupt. Keep your eyes on the code, and be wary of any project where the primary goal is political influence rather than technical innovation.

---

Read the original at The Block →