Bitcoin 2025: Where Cypherpunk Ideals Collide with MAGA Politics
“The Secret Service is a little bit nervous because I told them, ‘These bitcoin guys really like guns,’” US vice president JD Vance told the audience at the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas on May 28. “‘But they really like the president and vice president of the United States, too.’”
The cheers that ignited the room left no reason to doubt Vance’s statement. Why wouldn’t they like him? He’s the first US vice president to own bitcoin, holding between $250,000 and $500,000 according to an August 2024 disclosure. His presence, and that of other figures from the Trump administration and family, marked a significant shift in the atmosphere of one of the world's largest crypto gatherings. While excitement was perhaps more palpable when President Donald Trump himself spoke at the previous year's conference in Nashville, Tennessee, the 2025 attendees seemed to believe that Vance possessed a deeper understanding of the underlying technology and philosophy.
As Trump supporter Kelly Chandler put it, “We're blessed to have an administration that's embracing bitcoin, and JD actually understands it.” This sentiment resonated with a large portion of the 35,000 conference-goers, many of whom identified as conservatives disillusioned with what they termed “woke nonsense.” They saw the Trump administration's embrace of Bitcoin not just as a political strategy, but as a validation of their financial and ideological stance.
However, this newfound political embrace was not universally welcomed. Amidst the palpable enthusiasm for the political figures, a distinct undercurrent of dissent flowed from the long-time adherents of Bitcoin's original principles. “About a week ago, if you’d asked me, ‘Who is JD Vance?’ I’d say, ‘I don’t know, some politician,’” remarked Adam Walker, a 42-year-old Nevada resident and self-described “political atheist.” For Walker and others like him, the idea of the US government establishing a strategic bitcoin reserve, a plan Trump signed an order for in March, felt like a betrayal. They argued that such state involvement “strays from [bitcoin’s] original cypherpunk ideals.”
A Conference Transformed: From Cypherpunks to Politicians
The physical space of the conference at the Venetian Hotel’s Convention and Expo Center mirrored this ideological clash. Three of Elon Musk’s Cybertrucks were on display, symbolizing a certain tech-bro futurism that often intersects with the crypto world. More tellingly, two of Trump’s sons were present, and a MAGA table openly sold sequined Trump jackets. Longtime conference attendees observed an influx of what they called “normies”—individuals less steeped in the technical and philosophical underpinnings of Bitcoin, drawn instead by the hype, the potential for profit, and the political alignment.
Bitcoin developer Casey Rodarmor described these newcomers as “sycophants of both” bitcoin and the state, highlighting the inherent conflict he saw in this dual allegiance. The crowd, while still predominantly male and white, showed signs of diversifying, with moms pushing strollers and booths like the Black Blockchain Summit present. Yet, the dominant visual language leaned heavily into American patriotism, often intertwined with anti-establishment sentiment. Baseball caps that initially appeared to be MAGA gear revealed slogans like “Bitcoin Made in America” or “Make Frying Oil Tallow Again,&rdquo a nod to a company accepting bitcoin payments. Tax accountants offered branded merchandise alongside vendors selling shirts depicting George Washington triumphing over the IRS.
Beneath this surface of patriotic fervor and commercial activity, the core of dedicated bitcoin holders remained, clinging to the technology’s original ethos. This ethos is fundamentally anti-state, rooted in the idea of creating a monetary system that operates independently of governments and centralized financial institutions. They viewed the president issuing a Trump memecoin, which along with the family’s other crypto ventures reportedly boosted their wealth by roughly $2.9 billion, with skepticism and even disdain. For these purists, such actions represented a crass commercialization and politicization that undermined Bitcoin's revolutionary potential.
At the previous year’s conference, much of the excitement had centered on the prospect of electing Trump, seen as the first US president to openly embrace Bitcoin, and ending what many perceived as President Biden’s restrictive stance on crypto. Now that Trump was in office, actively engaging with the crypto space through policy initiatives and personal investments, the voices of his supporters were louder than ever, sometimes drowning out the warnings from those who feared that abandoning crypto’s foundational principles could endanger the community in the long run.
The Purist Backlash: “Nerd Money That They Can't Stop”
The tension reached a peak during a panel aptly titled “Are Bitcoiners Becoming Sycophants of the State?” Erik Cason, author of the book Cryptosovereignty, did not mince words. “Trying to [politicize bitcoin] is really dangerous for everybody, because the message of what bitcoin does … gets glossed over [as it becomes] this tool for the Republican Party,” he argued. Speaking to a crowd on the conference floor, he delivered a scathing critique of the political pandering he witnessed: “The amount of dick-sucking going on towards the political establishment here is shameful and disgusting,” he declared. “You can own bitcoin today and exit from this fucked-up establishment that's designed to steal from you and redistribute that money towards war and horror.”
Cason's fiery rhetoric was met with resounding cheers, with attendees standing up, pumping fists, and slapping their legs in emphatic agreement. This segment of the audience clearly felt that the core message of Bitcoin—financial independence and resistance to state control—was being compromised by the pursuit of political favor and mainstream acceptance.
Bruce Fenton, founder and CEO of fintech company Chainstone Labs, echoed this sentiment. He argued that the crypto community held the power dynamic in this relationship. Politicians, he contended, “need us more than we need them.” His advice was blunt: “We should refuse meetings with them … We've invented nerd money that they can't stop with all their tanks.” This perspective emphasized Bitcoin's strength as a decentralized, permissionless technology, inherently resistant to traditional forms of state power and control.
Beyond the philosophical objections, the purists also voiced pragmatic concerns about the risks of aligning with a single political party. They feared that if Bitcoin became too closely associated with the Republican party, a future Democratic administration might retaliate by implementing harsh regulations or even attempting to suppress the technology. Cason warned that if Democrats “take over, they’ll go after bitcoin and crypto hard.”
For Cason, the path forward required the Bitcoin community to recognize itself as an independent political force, beholden to neither major party. “Bitcoiners need to understand that we're our own political contingency now, and pandering to either side is a massive disservice,” he explained after the conference. “Bitcoin isn't for the right or the left. It's for the bottom, not the top.” This vision positions Bitcoin as a tool for individual empowerment and a challenge to hierarchical structures, whether governmental or corporate.
The Paradox of Pardon: Ross Ulbricht's Return
Many Bitcoin purists might have hoped for vocal support from Ross Ulbricht, the former operator of the dark-web marketplace Silk Road. Ulbricht became a potent symbol for the potential of crypto to operate outside the purview of state control when he was sentenced to life in prison in 2015 for charges related to running the site, which facilitated transactions using bitcoin. His imprisonment galvanized a significant portion of the crypto community, who saw him as a political prisoner targeted for enabling economic freedom.
Ulbricht's freedom had been such a critical issue for the community that David Bailey, CEO of BTC Inc, the organizer of Bitcoin 2025, actively communicated its importance to the Trump campaign during the 2024 election cycle, framing it as a high priority for the bitcoin voting bloc. Earlier this year, Trump pardoned Ulbricht after 11 years in prison.
Ulbricht's appearance at the conference, a free man thanks to a presidential pardon, presented a profound paradox. His very presence, a living embodiment of anti-state sentiment, had been sanctioned and enabled by the state he sought to bypass. This complicated narrative underscored the complex relationship between the crypto community's ideals and the realities of navigating the existing political system.
Ulbricht’s mother, Lyn, who had tirelessly attended the Bitcoin Conference for years advocating for her son’s release, offered insight into the community's motivations. “The impression people have is that bitcoiners just care about money,” she told me, “but many are idealistic and caring.” She credited a broad movement of donors and activists from the bitcoin, crypto, and Libertarian communities—large and small—with securing her son's freedom, emphasizing the community-driven nature of the effort.
When Ulbricht walked onto the main stage, appearing lanky and self-assured in a long, red tie, his address was carefully worded. He did not thank Trump directly, stating only that he was “thankful that we elected him.” He also didn't single out Bailey for his advocacy or even his mother for her years of tireless work. Instead, he directed his gratitude towards the audience, urging them to “stay true to our principles”—freedom, decentralization, and, notably, unity. He stressed that unity was “more important than ever” as Bitcoin's popularity and mainstream adoption continued to spread.
But unity is a difficult state to maintain when politics, especially the polarizing brand associated with Donald Trump, enter the picture. Trump's personally enriching crypto activities, such as the memecoin launch, left some in the community feeling uneasy, questioning the motives behind the political embrace.
The “Number Go Up” Crowd vs. Ideals
Despite the ideological friction, some bitcoin holders were willing to overlook Trump’s memecoin antics, citing pragmatic reasons. Dylan Liptov, 27, an employee of the crypto exchange Kraken, conceded that such actions were acceptable because Trump “supports crypto so much” and provided tangible benefits to coin holders. He mentioned the recent dinner Trump held for around 200 of the coin’s biggest buyers as an example. While word at the conference suggested that the food quality and the brevity of Trump’s appearance at the dinner were disappointing, the desire to attend was strong among supporters. One woman, wearing a bitcoin-patterned dress and openly touting the “Q movement” (referencing the QAnon conspiracy theory), expressed her wish to have been there, had she purchased enough Trump coins.
Others cited even more direct, self-serving reasons for their enthusiasm regarding the state's involvement in crypto. Kevin, a 25-year-old from Los Angeles (who withheld his last name for privacy), wore a leopard-print hat and stated simply that he “loves” the state’s involvement “because I make more money.” This perspective highlights the significant contingent within the conference for whom the primary motivation was financial gain, seeing political engagement as a means to boost the price of Bitcoin and other digital assets.
The political establishment buying into Bitcoin certainly contributes to the “number go up” phenomenon, a popular crypto meme referring to the price increase, benefiting investors like Kevin. Conversely, continued buying by the public and institutions pumps the value of holdings for politically connected individuals, including the president’s sons. While Vice President Vance’s speech focused on encouraging bitcoiners to remain politically active (implicitly, by voting Republican), Eric and Donald Trump Jr., taking the stage hours later, offered a more direct message: keep buying bitcoin.
Their message resonated not just domestically but globally. Will Hernandez, president of the Bitcoin Association of El Salvador, shared how the conference organizers provided his government with “a shitload of tickets” and, at previous events, a free platform to promote El Salvador's policy of making bitcoin legal tender. He noted that the conference had even comped booths worth $80,000 for the country’s delegation. Hernandez argued that with US adoption gaining traction, everyone should now take bitcoin seriously as an asset class. On the main stage, Bilal Bin Saqib, CEO of the Pakistan Crypto Council, announced that his government was setting up its own strategic bitcoin reserve, explicitly inspired by the US initiative.
Roger Huang, author of Would Mao Hold Bitcoin?, pointed out the international ripple effect of US political engagement with crypto. “China's top priority is always to watch what the [US] vice president and president do,” he observed, citing a former Chinese finance vice-minister who urged the country to study crypto in light of changing US policies. “Now, that [bitcoin] is table talk in DC, it will be table talk … around the world,” Huang stated. However, he cautioned that this global political and institutional adoption could come at the expense of Bitcoin's intended purpose. Fewer individuals might use it for “self-sovereignty,” opting instead to store cryptocurrency on centralized exchanges like Coinbase or invest through regulated exchange-traded funds, rather than holding their own private keys in self-custody wallets.
“You get a yacht,” he concluded metaphorically, “but you lose all your values.” This stark contrast encapsulates the central tension on display at Bitcoin 2025: the potential for immense financial and political gain offered by mainstream adoption versus the risk of compromising the decentralized, anti-establishment principles that gave birth to Bitcoin in the first place. The conference served as a vivid illustration of Bitcoin's ongoing evolution, grappling with its identity as it transitions from a niche technology for cypherpunks to a global asset class courted by politicians and corporations, forcing a fundamental question upon its community: can Bitcoin achieve widespread success without sacrificing its soul?
The Shifting Landscape of Bitcoin Adoption
The shift observed at Bitcoin 2025 is not merely cosmetic; it reflects a fundamental change in the forces driving Bitcoin's growth and public perception. For years, the community was primarily composed of technologists, libertarians, and early adopters drawn to the cryptography, the economic theory, and the vision of a monetary system free from government control and manipulation. Discussions often revolved around technical details like mining, nodes, and consensus mechanisms, or philosophical debates about monetary policy and individual liberty.
The influx of political figures and their supporters brings a different set of priorities. Their focus is less on the intricacies of the blockchain and more on the potential for Bitcoin as a political tool, an investment vehicle, and a symbol of a particular political stance. This is evident in the Trump administration's focus on a strategic bitcoin reserve, framed as a matter of national security and economic competitiveness, rather than a nod to individual financial sovereignty. It's also clear in the Trump family's direct financial involvement, leveraging their political brand to promote crypto assets and increase their personal wealth.
This clash of cultures and motivations creates friction. The purists, who see Bitcoin as a tool for radical societal change and individual empowerment against oppressive systems, view the political embrace as a co-option. They fear that aligning with the state, any state, legitimizes the very institutions Bitcoin was designed to circumvent. They worry that the focus on price and political endorsements distracts from the crucial work of building robust, decentralized infrastructure and educating individuals on the importance of self-custody and financial independence.
The political newcomers, on the other hand, see the engagement as a necessary step for mainstream adoption and protection from potentially hostile regulation. They believe that having allies in power is essential for Bitcoin to thrive and reach its full potential as a global asset. They may not fully grasp or prioritize the cypherpunk ideals, but they understand the power of political influence and public relations in driving acceptance and investment.
Navigating the Political Minefield
The panel “Are Bitcoiners Becoming Sycophants of the State?” served as a crucial forum for this debate. Erik Cason's impassioned speech resonated because it articulated the deep-seated fear among purists that the community was sacrificing its principles for political expediency. His point about the danger of becoming a “tool for the Republican Party” highlights the risk of alienating potential users and supporters who do not share that political affiliation. Bitcoin, in its ideal form, is meant to be apolitical, a neutral protocol accessible to anyone, regardless of their political beliefs or nationality.
Bruce Fenton's call to refuse meetings with politicians underscores a radical stance: that Bitcoin's power lies in its independence, not in its ability to curry favor with existing power structures. This perspective argues that engaging with politicians on their terms inevitably leads to compromise and ultimately weakens Bitcoin's decentralized nature. By remaining outside the political game, they believe, Bitcoin maintains its integrity and its ability to serve as a true alternative to the state-controlled financial system.
However, the reality is that as Bitcoin grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to remain entirely outside the political sphere. Governments around the world are grappling with how to regulate it, tax it, and potentially even use it. Ignoring politics entirely could leave the community vulnerable to unfavorable policies enacted without their input. The presence of figures like JD Vance and the Trump sons, while controversial to some, also represents an opportunity for dialogue and education, albeit one fraught with the risk of co-option.
The case of Ross Ulbricht further complicates this picture. His pardon is a clear victory for the community that advocated for his release, demonstrating the power of collective action within the crypto space. Yet, the fact that his freedom was granted by the head of state—the very entity he sought to bypass with Silk Road and Bitcoin—creates an undeniable irony. Ulbricht's message of unity and staying true to principles, delivered from a stage made possible by a presidential act, underscores the complex and often contradictory path Bitcoin is walking as it moves from the fringes to the mainstream.
Global Implications and the Future of Self-Sovereignty
The influence of US political figures embracing Bitcoin extends far beyond American borders. El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender, actively promoted at the conference, demonstrates how smaller nations are looking to Bitcoin as a potential path to economic independence and integration into the global financial system, potentially sidestepping traditional institutions dominated by larger powers. The announcement of Pakistan considering its own strategic bitcoin reserve, directly inspired by the US move, shows a domino effect in action. Nations are observing the actions of global powers and adjusting their own strategies accordingly.
Roger Huang's observation about China's interest is particularly significant. China has historically taken a restrictive stance on cryptocurrencies, but the shifting landscape in the US could prompt a re-evaluation. If major global players like the US and potentially China begin to view Bitcoin as a strategic asset, it fundamentally changes the geopolitical dynamics surrounding the technology. This could lead to increased state interest, potentially driving up the price and accelerating institutional adoption, but also raising concerns about centralization of control and surveillance.
Huang's warning about losing values while gaining a “yacht” serves as a potent metaphor for the potential trade-offs involved in this mainstreaming process. The pursuit of wealth and acceptance by the existing power structure could lead to a dilution of the core principles that made Bitcoin revolutionary in the first place. If individuals are encouraged to hold Bitcoin on centralized exchanges or through state-approved investment vehicles, they may gain financial exposure but lose the fundamental benefit of self-sovereignty—the ability to control their own wealth without relying on intermediaries.
The original vision of Bitcoin was not just about creating digital money; it was about creating a system that empowers individuals, reduces reliance on untrustworthy institutions, and offers an alternative to traditional power structures. The clash at Bitcoin 2025 highlights the challenge of preserving this vision as Bitcoin becomes a global phenomenon. Can it become a widely adopted, politically recognized asset class while still serving as a tool for individual freedom and resistance? Or will the pressures of mainstream adoption and political integration inevitably transform it into something fundamentally different from the “nerd money” designed to operate beyond the state's reach?
Conclusion: An Identity Crisis on a Grand Scale
Bitcoin 2025 was more than just a conference; it was a microcosm of Bitcoin's ongoing identity crisis. The presence of MAGA hats alongside cypherpunk t-shirts, the cheers for politicians mixed with impassioned speeches against state power, and the discussions of strategic reserves alongside calls for self-custody all pointed to a community grappling with its rapid evolution. The influx of political capital and mainstream attention brings undeniable benefits, including increased awareness, investment, and potential protection from outright bans. However, it also introduces the risk of compromising the very principles that gave Bitcoin its revolutionary edge.
The tension between the desire for mainstream success and the commitment to anti-establishment ideals will likely continue to define the Bitcoin space for years to come. The outcome of this clash will determine not only the future price of Bitcoin but also its ultimate role in the world: will it become a tool of the state and financial elites, or will it remain a decentralized force for individual empowerment and financial freedom? The events at Bitcoin 2025 suggest that this question is far from settled, and the debate between purists and pragmatists is just beginning.
