Just hours after the US election results were announced, I received messages from friends full of surprising assumptions. Some congratulated me, jokingly saying, “Congratulations, your side won for Bitcoin.” Others were displeased with comments like, “He's pathetic!” and “I'm surprised Americans just voted for Hitler.” One friend said, “You were lucky to find safety in the US as a refugee under the Biden administration. Refugees and asylum seekers will have a harder time here, but, hey, it's still good for your Bitcoin.” Many of these friends work in high-level corporate jobs or are university students.
As a Green Card holder, I was not eligible to vote, but I recognize the great disappointment of seeing their favorite candidate lose. Their problems were directed to me because they know that I support Bitcoin and work in the space. I understand that making me a scapegoat says less about me and more about their limited understanding of what the value of Bitcoin represents.
I am aware that ideological stereotyping will appear in this fraught political scene – not only during election season but also in places where innovative thinking should be encouraged. A prime example of this ideological bias occurred at the start of Ohio State University, where Chris Pan speech on Bitcoin was largely inspired by students attending their graduation ceremony. I admire the courage it took him to stand firm in front of over 60,000 people and continue his speech. My guess is that most of these graduate students have never experienced hyperinflation or grown up under authoritarian regimes, which could trigger a “self-denial” response your concepts outside of personal experience.
I have faced similar in my own unfinished academic journey; while I was at Georgetown, I had several unproductive conversations with professors and students who viewed Bitcoin as a far-reaching tool. Once a professor was saying to me, “Win, just because cryptocurrency (he didn't use the word Bitcoin) didn't help you and your people in your own country makes it a good tool – most people get scammed in America and in many parts of the world. I urge you to learn more about it.” Power dynamics in academic settings often discourage open discussion, which is why I eventually stopped discussing Bitcoin with my professors.
I have learned to understand that freedom of expression is a core American value. However, I have noticed that certain populations or communities label anyone they disagree with as 'racist.' In more severe cases, this response can escalate to using influence to fire people, expel them from school, or be subjected to coordinated cyber bullying. I am not claiming that racism does not exist in American society or elsewhere; I firmly believe that both overt and subtle forms of racism continue and are very much alive today.
Although bias and inequality are still widespread, Bitcoin works on completely different principles. Bitcoin is unlimited, leaderless, and accepts nationality or skin color at all times without requiring any form of ID to participate. People in countries at war convert their savings to Bitcoin to cross borders safely, human rights defenders receive donations in Bitcoinand women living under the Taliban get paid via the Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin is not racist because it is a tool of power for anyone willing to participate. Bitcoin is not Xenophobic because it empowers those who are forced to flee their homes to carry their hard economic energy across borders and participate in another economy when all other options are closed. For activists, often labeled as 'criminals' by authoritarian regimes, it supports them through frozen bank accounts and closed facilities. For women, living forever under a misogynistic rule, Bitcoin offers a rare opportunity for financial independence.
Going back to the context of the US election, Bitcoin not only empowers people in the world's most forgotten places and darkest corners, but it also opening new avenues for US presidential candidates to engage with this growing community. President-elect Donald Trump has made bold promises regarding Bitcoin, signaling a favorable policy. In contrast, the campaign of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has reportedly refused to support the Bitcoin community. Grant McCarty, co-founder of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, said“Can confirm that the Harris campaign was offered MILLIONS of dollars from companies, PACs, and individuals who were looking for her just to hold meetings with key crypto stakeholders and formulate a specific crypto policy plan. The campaign never took the industry seriously.” I believe this is something that most people may be unaware of, and confirmation bias often leads to accepting the idea that supporters Bitcoin back all policies on the other side, including possible major changes to America's humanitarian commitments such as refugee resettlement and asylum programs, anti-trafficking and the protection of so- wounded, and foreign aid and disaster relief.
Most people around the world lack stable economic infrastructure or access to long-term mortgages; they live and earn with more volatile currencies than crypto gambling and, in some cases, holding their own fiat currency is as dangerous as casino chips, or worse.
Fiat's experiment has failed with the global majority. I believe that Bitcoin and Bitcoin advocates deserve to be evaluated on their merits and work on global impact, rather than through a two-dimensional lens of political bias, inappropriate terms, or narrower classifications of a flawed but socially accepted reality, which allows them to withdraw from learning. and evaluating ideas.
This is a guest post by Win Ko Ko Aung. Their views are entirely theirs and do not necessarily reflect the views of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Source link