Hermine Wong, a Berkeley Law lecturer, published an opinion piece warning that large crypto firms are trying to claim the industry's political voice for themselves this election. The debate matters because it signals who will shape crypto policy, big companies or the technology's broader user base.
What actually happened
In an opinion piece published on 2 November 2026, CoinDesk carried an argument from Hermine Wong, a lecturer at Berkeley Law. Wong wrote, 'Our loyalty has been to the technology. This election, the trap is to let the biggest intermediaries claim it for themselves.' The piece frames crypto's political identity as a contest between the technology's founding principles and the largest companies operating in the space. Wong does not name specific firms or election races in the portion available. The argument centers on a single warning: that intermediaries, not the technology, could end up representing crypto's interests in political decisions this cycle.
How we got here
Crypto was built on the idea of removing intermediaries, from exchanges to custodians to political representatives. As the industry has grown, large companies have taken on bigger roles in shaping its public image and policy positions. Wong's piece does not specify which companies, donations, or races she means. Instead, it points to a long running tension: the technology promised to cut out middlemen, yet some of the most visible crypto voices today belong to the biggest firms, not individual users. Wong frames this election as a moment when that tension becomes a choice between the industry's largest players and the technology's broader base of holders and builders.
Why this matters for you
For token holders, the outcome of this debate could shape which policies get prioritized, consumer protections, taxation, or market structure rules. For builders, it raises a practical question: whose voice represents a project when regulators come calling, the protocol's design or the company that popularized it. For everyday users, the stakes are indirect but real. If large intermediaries dominate the political conversation, rules written in response may reflect corporate priorities rather than the open, permissionless design many users value. Wong's piece suggests that the industry's biggest names and its original decentralized ideals may not always want the same thing.
The bigger question
Wong's piece raises a question that extends beyond any single election: when an industry is built on removing middlemen, who gets to speak for it once middlemen exist. Should political representation follow company size, user numbers, or something else entirely. The answer could shape how regulators, voters, and builders understand crypto's values for years. It is a question with no clean answer, and one that will likely resurface every time a new election cycle puts crypto policy on the ballot.
What to watch
The opinion piece was published on 2 November 2026, close to this election cycle's voting period. No specific dates, races, or company names appear in the available material. Readers should watch for how crypto industry groups position themselves publicly as results come in, and whether Wong's warning about intermediaries gets echoed by other commentators covering the same contest.
