A UK party rising up the charts is caught up in a scandal - crypto guy gave the party leader (personally) £5m which he failed to declare and he started the party a few days later indicating he was paid to start the party.
It came out when Crypto guy gave an interview and mentioned it not realising the consequences.
The party leader first claimed it was for security.
Then it was determined he had bought property with it.
I remember watching Sky News and hearing that UK political parties were from then on forbidden to take donations in crypto which is just another nail in the coffin of crypto. All started going downhill when Satoshi left his Bitcoin project.
Christopher Harborne - not just a libertarian freedom loving crypto guy, but also the largest single shareholder of QinetiQ, a pretty notable UK Defence company.
They're idiots. They think that they just need to be buddies with the leading fascist and they're going to be golden. They don't have enough knowledge or curiosity to study what happened EVERY time this was attempted.
Hint: you might be buddies with the big fascist now, but this can change at any moment. And then you're just fodder for his _other_ cronies. Oh, and don't forget that even if you think that you're adept at court intrigue and covert ops, your _children_ might not be so skilled. Will they retain your fortune when the big fascist suddenly decides to... reallocate... some of their wealth?
This probably isn't fair but every time someone says "fascist" in online post I imagine an underweight sexually confused loser with purple hair and depression issues.
It's kind of like when right leaning politicians come out with "radical left socialists!". I imagine an old person with rigid thinking patterns and bad health problems yelling at Fox news in between their doctors appointments because someone on TV doesn't think the local chicken processing plant should run the county commission.
Again, these probably aren't completely fair pictures, but it's just what pops up in my head when people use this kind of inflammatory and inaccurate speech to brand their ideological enemies.
Damn, you got them all, there's been no rise of right wing populism glorifying hitler, the end of democratic institutions, the rise of dictatorial leaders, and expulsion of "foreigners" up to and including concentration camps at all recently, its just all losers with purple hair screeching.
Every time I see someone pearl-clutching about speaking honestly about fascists, my mental picture is unsympathetic as well. "Fascist" may be inflammatory but it's certainly not inaccurate. Fascists are a real part of the world, trying to language police them away doesn't work.
It's not hard to figure out, the fascists have been more explicitly welcoming to crypto freedom or at least put themselves out there to solicit that vote even if you claim their underlying policies aren't. Trump offered the freedom of Ross Ulbricht at the libertarian convention, did Kamala come to the libertarian convention and offer anything?
But this has never been true. Lots of valuable, productive, and loyal Nazis ended up in political prisoner camps.
Because that kind of kleptocracy runs on constantly fighting factions and incentives and selfishness. The core belief is selling someone else down the river because you can.
Andreessen Horowitz - $51.65m... are they the Goldman Sachs (Vampire Squid) of the Tech world?
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
Honestly, that comparison is insulting to Goldman Sachs. Goldman at least sometimes provides funding for things beneficial to humanity: infrastructure projects, small business loans, and the like. A16Z has transitioned fully to various incarnations of casino apps and getting rich by getting people addicted to gambling, they are a purely negative force in the world with no upside whatsoever.
That's not what I argued and you are misrepresenting my point. My argument is that, at least sometimes, Goldman invests in positive-sum trades which make the world better off, even if they extract too much for themselves in fees and leverage. By contrast, the various investments A16Z makes are negative-sum and only manage to make the world worse.
> More than one-third of all corporate money contributed to this year's November elections, and primary elections leading up to them, has come from the crypto industry, making it the top corporate political spender, the group said.
When it's from an industry consisting 100% of organized crime and negative-sum grifting, it's a lot.
I'd read a donation with "from the oil industry" and "from The Organization Of Stealing All Copper from Public Spaces" as different types of "bad", even if I'd prefer that the oil industry also not buy politicians.
For the avoidance of doubt, blockchain people are the copper thieves.
It almost doesn't matter? If it was less than other industries doesn't make it okay. I like any/all callouts of industries and their political "donations". Its all so ridiculous.
The fact that political spending is considered free speech in the US gives the rich and already powerful massive sway in the political system, it is basically tiled hard towards them. And then combined with how PACs hide their funding behind names like "Everyday Americans Making the World Better" when really it just wants to lessen online gambling laws for a billion dollar company, is just brutal. US politics is a dystopian future realized.
What I find mildly interesting is how the older money (eg, the Koch brothers) spent decades creating the current environment (between deregulation on business, cutting taxes on the wealthy, and political ventures like the Federalist Society and Heritage, Inc), but it's come together to create a newer group of rich jerks who are really exploiting it to the hilt.
Crypto firms have supplied more than one-third of all corporate money so far in this year's elections
Fairshake has received $82 million in contributions this cycle
Crypto, AI, big tech and online betting firms have spent $294 million combined on 2026 elections
June 30 (Reuters) - Cryptocurrency companies have spent $189 million so far to influence the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, outpacing their spending for the previous election cycle, according to a new report, opens new tab from Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization.
More than one-third of all corporate money contributed to this year's November elections, and primary elections leading up to them, has come from the crypto industry, making it the top corporate political spender, the group said.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
Crypto was also the top corporate donor in the 2024 election cycle, when it contributed $170 million and many of the congressional candidates it boosted won their races.
Companies in the artificial intelligence, big tech and online betting sectors have also contributed heavily. Combined with crypto, they have spent $294 million on the 2026 elections so far. In November, the full House of Representatives will be up for reelection, along with roughly a third of the Senate.
"The big takeaway is that corporate money is playing a bigger role than ever in our elections, and it's only expanding," said Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen and the author of the report.
As far as the US is concerned, given how badly bitcoin has done since Trump was inaugurated, the worst performing asset class by far, I would say the ROI has been pretty bad. Industries and sectors that donated nothing still got bailouts and other initiatives, such as AI, quantum, metals, and semiconductors. Noting for crypto donors. No bailouts, or even mentions on twitter. Politicians can take money but they don't have to honor their end of the deal to give anything in return.
But is that also accounting for any regulatory pressure/investigations that might have otherwise hit those donors? Perhaps just the promise of not being prosecuted for their crimes if/when their scam collapses is sufficient ROI for them.
that and directing US dollars into crypto markets via the government. you can sell people on the idea with the same arguments that are currently moderately successful in convincing people to do things like buy gold as a retirement plan, and anyone who is holding crypto before the government "invests" in it will see incredible returns as demand spikes for an asset whose supply is intentionally capped. The crypto whales are suddenly in the presence of a crypto leviathan in the form of government spending, they not only make a ton of money but they can sell out without crashing the market (solving a huge problem, esp for shitcoin whales but realistically for major stakeholders in all crypto) and everyone who's actually involved in the decision-making process leaves with fistfuls of money from people who didn't meaningfully have a say in which bag they'd be purchasing or at what price.
The bitcoin people bought a pardon for their hero, one of the biggest facilitators of drug smuggling in the world, and someone who personally paid money to have people killed. Including explicitly saying to indiscriminately kill whatever unrelated bystander happens to be there.
That was a stated goal for them, and they got what they paid for. So good ROI on that.
They've gotten PAAAAH-LENTY for their money.
Did they get their pet asset to go up in price? No. But they managed to buy "crime is legal now". The shitcoin rugpull industry is making BANK, and the DOJ has been paid off to look the other way.
Investigations have been shut down, and mobsters have been freed. They are not the losers. Society is.
I mean, anyone can fail to deliver their end of any agreement. They may have learned a harsh lesson about bargaining with Trump, but that doesn't mean that it was dumb to pursue the deal as negotiated or would be dumb to pursue a similar deal with someone who might actually follow through on it.
A UK party rising up the charts is caught up in a scandal - crypto guy gave the party leader (personally) £5m which he failed to declare and he started the party a few days later indicating he was paid to start the party.
It came out when Crypto guy gave an interview and mentioned it not realising the consequences.
The party leader first claimed it was for security.
Then it was determined he had bought property with it.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-nigel-fara...
Crypto money makes a change from Russian bribes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6xwy015ngo
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-58711151
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/04/lord-evans-...
I remember watching Sky News and hearing that UK political parties were from then on forbidden to take donations in crypto which is just another nail in the coffin of crypto. All started going downhill when Satoshi left his Bitcoin project.
Nice - one don't even have to click the URL to know what POS is involved.
I wonder why all the libertarian freedom loving crypto guys keep backing fascists
It’s not your freedom they care about.
Christopher Harborne - not just a libertarian freedom loving crypto guy, but also the largest single shareholder of QinetiQ, a pretty notable UK Defence company.
Because they're not as much 'freedom loving' as they are 'selfish dicks.'
They're idiots. They think that they just need to be buddies with the leading fascist and they're going to be golden. They don't have enough knowledge or curiosity to study what happened EVERY time this was attempted.
Hint: you might be buddies with the big fascist now, but this can change at any moment. And then you're just fodder for his _other_ cronies. Oh, and don't forget that even if you think that you're adept at court intrigue and covert ops, your _children_ might not be so skilled. Will they retain your fortune when the big fascist suddenly decides to... reallocate... some of their wealth?
This probably isn't fair but every time someone says "fascist" in online post I imagine an underweight sexually confused loser with purple hair and depression issues.
It's kind of like when right leaning politicians come out with "radical left socialists!". I imagine an old person with rigid thinking patterns and bad health problems yelling at Fox news in between their doctors appointments because someone on TV doesn't think the local chicken processing plant should run the county commission.
Again, these probably aren't completely fair pictures, but it's just what pops up in my head when people use this kind of inflammatory and inaccurate speech to brand their ideological enemies.
Damn, you got them all, there's been no rise of right wing populism glorifying hitler, the end of democratic institutions, the rise of dictatorial leaders, and expulsion of "foreigners" up to and including concentration camps at all recently, its just all losers with purple hair screeching.
Fascist is descriptive and makes perfect sense here
Every time I see someone pearl-clutching about speaking honestly about fascists, my mental picture is unsympathetic as well. "Fascist" may be inflammatory but it's certainly not inaccurate. Fascists are a real part of the world, trying to language police them away doesn't work.
It may make you uncomfortable to learn this but fascists - actual ones - are currently active in politics! My hair isn't dyed, for what it's worth.
We could argue over the definition of fascism and which politicians fit it which might be more productive than accusing posters of being depressed.
It's not hard to figure out, the fascists have been more explicitly welcoming to crypto freedom or at least put themselves out there to solicit that vote even if you claim their underlying policies aren't. Trump offered the freedom of Ross Ulbricht at the libertarian convention, did Kamala come to the libertarian convention and offer anything?
> did Kamala come to the libertarian convention and offer anything?
I thought that offering ‘not Trump’ would be enough. I was very wrong.
if you're in with the fascists they are the most liberty-oriented party. you can do whatever you want, entirely without regard to the law.
But this has never been true. Lots of valuable, productive, and loyal Nazis ended up in political prisoner camps.
Because that kind of kleptocracy runs on constantly fighting factions and incentives and selfishness. The core belief is selling someone else down the river because you can.
Andreessen Horowitz - $51.65m... are they the Goldman Sachs (Vampire Squid) of the Tech world?
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-grea...
Honestly, that comparison is insulting to Goldman Sachs. Goldman at least sometimes provides funding for things beneficial to humanity: infrastructure projects, small business loans, and the like. A16Z has transitioned fully to various incarnations of casino apps and getting rich by getting people addicted to gambling, they are a purely negative force in the world with no upside whatsoever.
Show me something Goldman has done that wasn't for the return %.
That's not what I argued and you are misrepresenting my point. My argument is that, at least sometimes, Goldman invests in positive-sum trades which make the world better off, even if they extract too much for themselves in fees and leverage. By contrast, the various investments A16Z makes are negative-sum and only manage to make the world worse.
Is this a little or a lot? any idea how that compares to other industries and donors?
Paragraph #2 directly answers your question:
> More than one-third of all corporate money contributed to this year's November elections, and primary elections leading up to them, has come from the crypto industry, making it the top corporate political spender, the group said.
someone below is saying it's over a third of all spending so far. which feels like a lot to me.
When it's from an industry consisting 100% of organized crime and negative-sum grifting, it's a lot.
I'd read a donation with "from the oil industry" and "from The Organization Of Stealing All Copper from Public Spaces" as different types of "bad", even if I'd prefer that the oil industry also not buy politicians.
For the avoidance of doubt, blockchain people are the copper thieves.
It almost doesn't matter? If it was less than other industries doesn't make it okay. I like any/all callouts of industries and their political "donations". Its all so ridiculous.
I guess the threat of this is what's unclear. The cryptobros are going to take over the world and then do what exactly?
The fact that political spending is considered free speech in the US gives the rich and already powerful massive sway in the political system, it is basically tiled hard towards them. And then combined with how PACs hide their funding behind names like "Everyday Americans Making the World Better" when really it just wants to lessen online gambling laws for a billion dollar company, is just brutal. US politics is a dystopian future realized.
Even crazier that they sway elections in districts they've never even visited nor intend to ever visit
Enabled yet again, today, by the SCOTUS.
What I find mildly interesting is how the older money (eg, the Koch brothers) spent decades creating the current environment (between deregulation on business, cutting taxes on the wealthy, and political ventures like the Federalist Society and Heritage, Inc), but it's come together to create a newer group of rich jerks who are really exploiting it to the hilt.
Rookie numbers.
Related:
Tech Influence Watch site: https://influence.citationneeded.news/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48632474)
Blog post: https://www.citationneeded.news/tech-influence-watch/
Related:
The AI industry is pouring millions into US elections
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48687483
Crypto firms have supplied more than one-third of all corporate money so far in this year's elections
Fairshake has received $82 million in contributions this cycle
Crypto, AI, big tech and online betting firms have spent $294 million combined on 2026 elections
June 30 (Reuters) - Cryptocurrency companies have spent $189 million so far to influence the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, outpacing their spending for the previous election cycle, according to a new report, opens new tab from Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization. More than one-third of all corporate money contributed to this year's November elections, and primary elections leading up to them, has come from the crypto industry, making it the top corporate political spender, the group said.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here. Crypto was also the top corporate donor in the 2024 election cycle, when it contributed $170 million and many of the congressional candidates it boosted won their races.
Companies in the artificial intelligence, big tech and online betting sectors have also contributed heavily. Combined with crypto, they have spent $294 million on the 2026 elections so far. In November, the full House of Representatives will be up for reelection, along with roughly a third of the Senate.
"The big takeaway is that corporate money is playing a bigger role than ever in our elections, and it's only expanding," said Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen and the author of the report.
"Very legal and very cool"
As far as the US is concerned, given how badly bitcoin has done since Trump was inaugurated, the worst performing asset class by far, I would say the ROI has been pretty bad. Industries and sectors that donated nothing still got bailouts and other initiatives, such as AI, quantum, metals, and semiconductors. Noting for crypto donors. No bailouts, or even mentions on twitter. Politicians can take money but they don't have to honor their end of the deal to give anything in return.
But is that also accounting for any regulatory pressure/investigations that might have otherwise hit those donors? Perhaps just the promise of not being prosecuted for their crimes if/when their scam collapses is sufficient ROI for them.
that and directing US dollars into crypto markets via the government. you can sell people on the idea with the same arguments that are currently moderately successful in convincing people to do things like buy gold as a retirement plan, and anyone who is holding crypto before the government "invests" in it will see incredible returns as demand spikes for an asset whose supply is intentionally capped. The crypto whales are suddenly in the presence of a crypto leviathan in the form of government spending, they not only make a ton of money but they can sell out without crashing the market (solving a huge problem, esp for shitcoin whales but realistically for major stakeholders in all crypto) and everyone who's actually involved in the decision-making process leaves with fistfuls of money from people who didn't meaningfully have a say in which bag they'd be purchasing or at what price.
The bitcoin people bought a pardon for their hero, one of the biggest facilitators of drug smuggling in the world, and someone who personally paid money to have people killed. Including explicitly saying to indiscriminately kill whatever unrelated bystander happens to be there.
That was a stated goal for them, and they got what they paid for. So good ROI on that.
They've gotten PAAAAH-LENTY for their money.
Did they get their pet asset to go up in price? No. But they managed to buy "crime is legal now". The shitcoin rugpull industry is making BANK, and the DOJ has been paid off to look the other way.
Investigations have been shut down, and mobsters have been freed. They are not the losers. Society is.
Some of them have gotten out of jail.
Yeah but Justin Sun is a stable genius, losing tons of money is just part of his 4D chess.
They got Ross Ulbricht out of jail and a few cryptocurrency scammers out too. That’s all the cryptobros wanted was pretty much nothing but symbolism.
I mean, anyone can fail to deliver their end of any agreement. They may have learned a harsh lesson about bargaining with Trump, but that doesn't mean that it was dumb to pursue the deal as negotiated or would be dumb to pursue a similar deal with someone who might actually follow through on it.