A scene from the Bitcoin Policy Summit last year.
During the Bitcoin Policy Summit, policymakers from across the U.S. government, including five members of Congress, spoke with industry representatives and the bitcoin community. I attended as a speaker on countering digital authoritarianism, highlighting different parts of the world that were embracing central bank digital currencies, and what role the United States could play in leveraging bitcoin to ensure its use as a tool of freedom and resilience. There were many lessons learned, but a few can make for a powerful summary.
1. Support for bitcoin is deeply bipartisan in the United States, and carries past ideological and party lines
Despite the reputation of having Bitcoin as a divisive topic that can fall under the traditional “red vs. blue” debate, we saw two Democratic members of Congress, and three Republicans Members of Congress from a variety of states talk about why they thought Bitcoin benefited the United States. Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn., host state of Bitcoin 2024) all brought passionate speeches talking about the value of Bitcoin and how it could benefit their constituents. Lummis in particular brought forward a passionate defense of why bitcoin scared members of the government who tried to control it. On the House side, outgoing House Financial Services Chair Rep. McHenry (R-N.C.) and Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) brought forward their views on bitcoin. Executive branch employees from across the different cabinets of the United States also joined in, with representation from the Treasury Department, Energy Department and more.
The speakers didn’t talk about the benefits of bitcoin for their political party, but rather how the United States should study and consider leveraging it. This was a rare tone in a political process that might often be more known for partisan-level sniping rather than broad consensus and consideration. Having said that, bitcoin isn’t immune from political maneuvering. Policymakers mentioned that the Financial Services Committee was quite pro-bitcoin, but Senate Banking Committee tended not to be. Yet it was refreshing to hear policymakers talk about bitcoin in a more reflective tone rather than a reactive one shaped by partisan talking points.
2. Policymakers are interested in bitcoin and want to learn more
The Bitcoin Policy Summit drew a full house, with many legislative staffers, policy analysts and policymakers from various parts of the federal government. The seats were packed, and the general attitude was one of curiosity. There was a sense that Bitcoin had grown through another maturation stage. For the policymakers, the ETF approvals were an inflection point, something that gave bitcoin more of a “grown-up” appearance. The full crowd of policy folks at the Bitcoin Policy Summit gave credence to the idea that bitcoin was now no longer just a side topic in Washington, but rather something that could generate a large amount of interest.
3. The conversation was not really about the price
The entire conference was noticeable for having no panels that directly discussed the price of bitcoin and how to trade it. There wasn’t any “expert” that came in and said this model could perfectly predict bitcoin’s price at this entry point or exit point. While price movement and the consideration of price are important, it felt like the conference was curated and organically resonated around bitcoin’s use as a tool, and it featured several human rights activists, including Anna Chekhovich, who served served as financial director of the Anti-Corruption Foundation founded by Alexei Navalny.
4. The shift of bitcoin mining from China to the U.S. was noticeable
I had written previously about bitcoin mining after China’s bitcoin mining ban. The consequences of that were clear during the conference, whose major sponsors were mostly publicly traded miners now based in the United States. The world’s largest mining pool, Foundry Group, is now based in the United States. There are now companies like Riot, Cleanspark and Marathon that contribute significantly to bitcoin’s security and computing power.
Bitcoin mining is one of the rare gifts that the Chinese party-state has given the United States. Many miners talked about the employment benefits they provided. For example, Jason Les of Riot discussed the 600 rural jobs that Riot generated, and Fred Thiel, the CEO of Marathon, mentioned a shrimp farm powered by heat from bitcoin mining, converting an economically productive activity to a second-order one. Instead of following the trendline of giving up long-term intellectual capital and skills development for short-term profits (as happened with fields as diverse as solar panel manufacturing and the creation of semiconductor foundries), bitcoin mining offers the opportunity for the United States to capitalise on skills clusters that China forbade on ideological reasons, with the added bonus of further decentralising hash rate dedicated to bitcoin’s security.
5. Young people and Gen Zers were prominent in the discussion
Members of Generation Bitcoin were among the attendees, as well as the moderators. One of the speakers for example, was Arsh Molu who interviewed Roya Mahboob. He is the founder of Generation Bitcoin, which worked with Bitcoin Magazine to give students free entry to Bitcoin 2024 in Nashville. It was a great demonstration that bitcoin is popular among all age groups, and that young people today are interested in bitcoin.
The Bitcoin Policy Summit was an engaging event that brought together bitcoiners and policymakers together into an active discussion. It placed the United States among a number of countries that are considering bitcoin for its benefits, rather than countries like China that have tried to ban it. Given the global leadership role the United States has, the lessons and interactions that came about because of the Summit may very well resonate across the world in time.
