Against choosing your political allegiances based on who is "pro-crypto"

https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/07/17/procrypto.html

I agree conceptually with the ideals you've laid out, but it reads like an “all or nothing” call on Washington, which history would suggest would lead to slower adoption and more attack.

Advancing a goal via modern politics requires compromise, choosing one’s battles and securing wins with new allies when possible.

How would you propose people work within the existing system to take steps towards the ideal state, without making any concessions?

Principal at Cobalt Ventures. Write @ TheItinerant.io ; BenErsing.com Host: /venturecapital /finance /adventures

I think every individual person has to make that call for themselves. Maybe the compromise of a particular candidate being pro-crypto but not so great on other freedom/privacy issues still evens out to being worth voting for. But vitalik's argument is that many people are not at all currently factoring in the other non-crypto issues that matter a lot.

Privacy and internationalism for example are non-crypto issues he brought up which matter a lot to this industry and the people in it, but which are issues that are currently not being discussed in evaluating "pro-crypto" candidates

I agree voting is always a highly personal decision.

I read the article to be focused squarely on crypto related issues. 

What did I miss that broadened the scope to non-crypto issues?