Last year started with such promise.
In March 2022, President Biden issued an executive order that coordinated agencies within the Executive Branch to take a long, hard look at the U.S. digital asset ecosystem: the good and the bad, the opportunities and the pitfalls.
Those of us who advocate for a comprehensive, whole-of-government U.S. strategy on crypto were cautiously optimistic, for a few reasons.
First, we hoped the White House’s focus would result in regulatory clarity; specifically, rules that would promote the growth of digital assets in the U.S. while providing important benefits like consumer protection, crime prevention, robust disclosures, and financial inclusion.
(Contrary to a lot of commentary, most crypto founders want regulatory clarity, so they can build without the specter of uncertain rules lurking in the shadows.)
Second, we hoped that the government would gain a better understanding of what crypto can power: provable digital ownership, near-costless and instantaneous value transfer across the internet, and greater control over one’s finances and private information, all without the need to interact with (and pay) centralized intermediaries such as banks or big tech companies.
Unfortunately, the last year in crypto has not lived up to these hopes. To be sure, some of that is the result of self-inflicted wounds: the frauds, hacks, and failures of last year – including FTX, Terra, Celsius, BlockFi, and others – that have made it hard to separate the social good the technology provides from the hucksters that sully its name. D.C. policymakers have been stung, and its regulatory agencies want to make sure the next failure doesn’t happen on their watch.
But even in the face of these industry fiascos, the government’s approach has been one-sided. The agency that has taken the lead in regulating digital assets, the Securities and Exchange Commission, has yet to propose rules that would allow crypto projects to comply with the securities laws (as one of its commissioners proposed), and instead has brought actions against some of the most compliant projects in the space, including Coinbase — a company the SEC allowed to go public less than two years ago.
What does this mean for crypto founders, builders, and investors?
My perspective is that it’s in the strategic national interest of the U.S. to have these technologies created here, so we can have a say in how they are built and regulated.
If we are right about the potential of this technology, an anti-crypto position by the U.S. government would be akin to handing Europe or Asia the keys to building the Internet thirty years ago. To boot, the vacuum created by U.S. regulatory uncertainty is likely to be occupied by countries that may not share our commitment to privacy and free speech.
As an optimist, I’m compelled to keep working on behalf of founders and the industry to have digital assets thrive in the U.S. I believe that, in time, the U.S. will get it right.
But in the meantime, the U.S. is losing the initiative.
Our dominance in crypto developer talent is waning.
Digital asset companies are being founded elsewhere.
Projects are restricting American users from accessing them.
And other jurisdictions—most notably the European Union, United Kingdom, and Singapore—are building frameworks that lean into the advantages of the technology and provide a clear regulatory roadmap, to attract these projects.
At True Ventures, one thing we’ve found is that the building itself hasn’t stopped. The number of high quality founders with potentially groundbreaking technology has not diminished, and that’s a reason for hope and excitement.
We will keep supporting them through our crypto community conversations where founders discuss current regulatory issues with superstar guest speakers, our continued advocacy efforts in D.C., and by providing whatever wisdom we can as the regulatory environment becomes—in time—more clear.
But those of us who care about the U.S. defining the next evolution of the Internet have our work cut out for us, given the government’s crypto antagonism.
And time isn’t on our side.
This article was first published in the True Ventures newsletter. Subscribe here for monthly insights.
I appreciate your concise analysis of the significance of this moment and the potential that has yet to fully unfold. Especially when the spotlight has shifted primarily onto AI.
In January of 2022 I was preparing to attend a conference in Jackson Hole aptly named the "10,450 Ft View- The Wild West of NFTs" when it dawned on me how different I was as a second-time founder and how the lack of regulatory clarity of crypto had transformed me. For context, just a few years prior, I was a favorably-rated, technical specialist at the Genius Bar in Bethesda, Maryland humbly soaking in all that retail, tech, hardware, consumer user experience only Apple could offer when I tried (unsuccessfully) to launch an Apple Watch app to track brain activity in Alzheimer’s patients. Among other features, I wanted the Watch to monitor brain activity via the wrist, recognize episodes of memory loss in real time and then engage the wearer by pushing photo, video memories and content. And in preparation for any conference during those earlier years, my routine would involve meticulously reviewing the roster of speakers, honing in exclusively on venture capitalists and similar attendees. Fast forward to January 2022, and due to what I perceived as a convergence of pain points and opportunities within the crypto (and Web 3) space and society, including the debate surrounding ICOs and securities, the ongoing Ripple case at the time, instances of rug pulls, and scammers masquerading as founders exploiting an investment community understandably apprehensive about potentially overlooking a profound and nearly 'deep tech' opportunity that might yield a 100x return. In this instance, my attention was instead directed towards identifying lawyers and subject matter experts who not only aligned with our mission but also shared this high level of moonshot ambition.
Opportunities such as leveling the playing field for the masses by empowering SMB customers and other creators to digitize products, seamlessly transfer value and compete with bigger players while helping underbanked users bypass intermediaries and take control of their finances further strengthened my newfound position that obtaining regulatory clarity would be key to unlocking(and sustaining) true innovation. Innovation that could address user pain points at scale, withstand legal scrutiny and drive longterm returns.
“My perspective is that it’s in the strategic national interest of the U.S. to have these technologies created here, so we can have a say in how they are built and regulated.
If we are right about the potential of this technology, an anti-crypto position by the U.S. government would be akin to handing Europe or Asia the keys to building the Internet thirty years ago. To boot, the vacuum created by U.S. regulatory uncertainty is likely to be occupied by countries that may not share our commitment to privacy and free speech.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Additionally, I'd like to emphasize that us founders, as well as subject matter experts, and funds share some responsibility for the absence of a widely applicable use case for this technology that extends beyond fintech. This exacerbates the delay in the adoption of crypto and Web 3, in contrast to AI. The lack of prominent instances showcasing how these technologies could substantially disrupt B2C marketplaces appears to have left government officials and other 'gatekeepers' seemingly unaware of the potential impact.
“As an optimist, I’m compelled to keep working on behalf of founders and the industry to have digital assets thrive in the U.S. I believe that, in time, the U.S. will get it right.
But in the meantime, the U.S. is losing the initiative.
Our dominance in crypto developer talent is waning.
Digital asset companies are being founded elsewhere.
Projects are restricting American users from accessing them.
And other jurisdictions—most notably the European Union, United Kingdom, and Singapore—are building frameworks that lean into the advantages of the technology and provide a clear regulatory roadmap, to attract these projects.”
I share this sentiment too. You might naively believe in your heart your team is building the “portal to the future” yet in a rare, late night rabbit hole find yourself googling school systems in Singapore for your daughters or Japan because of it’s gaming, tech culture and enthusiasm for MR/AR/VR.
Once more, I appreciate this timely piece that remains relevant even now and until the promises of crypto have delivered more value to the masses.