"Crypto is nonpartisan." This statement used to be uncontroversial, but as election season heats up and crypto becomes a live issue on the campaign trail, many are starting to wonder if crypto has—or even should—take the side of Republicans (Rs) against the Democrats (Ds). We should not.

First, let me explain what "crypto is nonpartisan" means.

It doesn't mean Rs and Ds are equivalent on crypto policy. Of course they're not; nobody who pays attention to this issue could reasonably argue otherwise.

It means you can't know what someone thinks about crypto based solely on the R or D next to their name. It means the toxicity of US politics hasn't taken over yet, as it has for so many other issues where party affiliation dictates blind adherence to ignorant doctrine. It means there's still a chance for bipartisanship to win out in Congress, which we'll need to achieve anything meaningful and durable in Washington. It means a younger generation of Ds can and will support crypto when their time comes to lead.

To be clear: it is undeniable that Rs have been better on average for crypto than Ds. Since President Biden took office, Ds have primarily sought to destroy crypto while Rs have stood up to defend it. For three years, Biden-appointed regulators at the SEC and elsewhere have waged an unjust campaign of litigation and rulemaking against crypto. Those regulators came from the Warren wing of the party, which has pushed legislation that essentially bans the technology entirely. Meanwhile, Rs in both the House and Senate have called out administrative malfeasance, stopped "crypto ban" bills, and advanced productive ideas about stablecoin and market structure regulation.

These are the facts, but they don't tell the whole story: crypto has supporters and opponents in both parties.

For the Ds, Biden and other party leaders made the mistake of putting the Warren wing in charge of financial regulation, but there's a significant and growing (and younger) group of pro-business, pro-innovation moderates who take a totally different view on crypto. The best thing for crypto long-term is to elevate those Ds, not alienate them. No matter what happens this November, whether you like it or not, Ds will hold power again some day; that's how the pendulum swings.

For the Rs, the party's overall embrace of crypto and strong opposition to administrative overreach has covered up for R national security hawks who view crypto as merely a tool for criminals, and support exactly the same crypto ban bills (in the guise of "anti-money laundering") as the Warren camp does. Of course we should reward R allies who have fought valiantly for crypto, but their support shouldn't excuse the hostility of others who prefer big banks to bitcoin.

The point is: "Rs are currently better than Ds" doesn't mean we should abandon Ds and align entirely with Rs. The nonpartisan nature of crypto is a rare and valuable asset that we should protect at all costs.

With nonpartisan issues, substance wins out. Crypto is a revolutionary technology that should and does appeal to both sides of the aisle. This means crypto can succeed in Washington no matter who's in charge, as long as we do our jobs well.

With partisan issues, substance is irrelevant. One party is in favor, the other party is against, end of discussion. If crypto becomes partisan, its fate will turn on who wins elections and nothing else, a terrible outcome for any industry that seeks clarity and stability under law.

Also to be clear: I'm not telling anyone how to vote. I'm not predicting that Kamala Harris would be any better on crypto than Joe Biden. I'm not diminishing the good work of Rs or making excuses for the antagonism of Ds over the last few years.

I'm just saying crypto is nonpartisan, and it should stay that way.