Rewriting History: The Biden Administration's Crypto Stance
A recent New York Times op-ed by former Biden economic advisors Ryan Cummings and Jared Bernstein attempts to frame the administration's approach to cryptocurrency as a success, even linking it to Bitcoin's price decline. However, this narrative, as argued by critics, conveniently omits the significant collateral damage inflicted by what many in the industry describe as 'regulation by hostility.'
The op-ed credits the Biden administration with 'increasingly aggressive regulatory efforts to curb scams and fraud.' Yet, this framing overlooks the stark reality of the period: FTX, one of the largest financial frauds in history, grew to enormous scale under their watch. Sam Bankman-Fried, a significant Democratic donor, met with senior administration officials, including then-SEC Chair Gary Gensler, while orchestrating his scheme. The administration's preference for 'regulation-by-enforcement' over establishing clear, actionable rules inadvertently created an environment where legitimate, compliance-focused companies were forced offshore or out of business, while bad actors like Bankman-Fried thrived in the regulatory vacuum.
Operation Choke Point 2.0: Debanking the Industry
One of the most troubling aspects of the Biden era's crypto policy, conveniently ignored by the former advisors, was 'Operation Choke Point 2.0.' Under pressure from federal regulators, banks systematically debanked lawful crypto businesses, severing their access to the financial system without due process, formal rulemaking, or legislative authority. This campaign impacted not only businesses but also ordinary individuals and small enterprises who had turned to crypto due to being underserved by traditional banking. The administration effectively cut consumers off from financial tools without any policy undergoing the democratic process of notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Dismissing Utility: A Misguided View of Crypto's Value
Cummings and Bernstein dismiss crypto as a 'painfully slow and expensive database' with 'almost no practical use.' While they acknowledge crypto's role in international remittances, they wave it away as a trivial achievement. This perspective ignores the immediate, material financial improvement that fast, low-cost cross-border transfers offer to millions globally. Stablecoins on blockchain networks can execute transfers in minutes for a fraction of the cost of traditional remittances, which average nearly 6.5%, costing migrant workers and their families billions annually.
Furthermore, the claim that 'no giant tech firms' are using blockchain technology is demonstrably false. Major institutions like Fidelity, JPMorgan, BlackRock, BNY Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Visa, Mastercard, Meta, Stripe, Block Inc., and Franklin Templeton are actively building on blockchain infrastructure, underscoring its rapidly growing ecosystem of financial applications beyond just remittances.
Volatility vs. Worth: A Flawed Analytical Lens
The op-ed's central 'news hook'—Bitcoin's price decline from its 2025 peak—is used to condemn an entire asset class. This approach is analytically unserious. Volatility is a common feature of nascent markets, not an inherent sign of worthlessness. Critics point to historical parallels, such as Amazon's 94% stock decline during the dot-com bust, arguing that by the same logic, it too should have been written off as 'fundamentally worthless.' Judging an entire technological paradigm by short-term price movements ignores its underlying innovation and long-term potential.