Crypto’s moment has seemingly arrived in Washington, D.C., and the industry is trying to make the most of it. But as new organizations hatch and leadership shifts at the top advocacy operations, the field of pro-crypto groups trying to carry the torch is more crowded than ever.
No fewer than a dozen groups — including the Digital Chamber, Blockchain Association and Crypto Council for Innovation — are seeking to steer digital assets policies in the U.S., some of them substantially overlapping in their membership bases, funding sources and in the goals they’re seeking to accomplish.
Most of the leaders of those groups told CoinDesk they have a more-the-merrier view on pushing for friendly policy from President Donald Trump’s highly receptive administration and from Congress, which is increasingly loaded with industry allies.
“Many of the objectives are consistent across these groups,” said Miller Whitehouse-Levine, who recently left the DeFi Education Fund to launch the new Solana Policy Institute. “That’s a good thing, because I think there’s an absolute torrent of legislative and regulatory work that’s going on right now, and we need all the help we could get.”
Congress is chasing several crypto bills, including legislation to set boundaries for crypto markets, oversee stablecoin issuers, curtail digital assets in illicit financing, call for proof of reserves at crypto firms and set up government digital reserves. “We would have 100 more groups and 10,000 more people working on these issues in an ideal world,” Whitehouse-Levine added.
But other current and former policy advocates privately grant that the field is getting packed and that it can be difficult to justify so many entities pulling for the same cause with the same finite universe of congressional staff, White House offices and regulatory officials. In the recent past, groups have talked about reorganization and consolidation, according to people familiar with the discussions, though such efforts haven’t been executed.
Meanwhile, new organizations have hung their shingles in recent weeks, including Whitehouse-Levine’s SPI and the National Cryptocurrency Association, further increasing the ranks. That’s often how the numbers have grown in Washington: A company or lobbyist who feels some specific interest isn’t properly represented and can figure out how to pay for it. And big crypto firms have also set up their own D.C. operations, pushing for their more highly tailored interests.
Cody Carbone is still just days into his leadership of the Digital Chamber — the oldest and largest crypto membership group. The Chamber and virtually every other major digital assets organization has lost or swapped leaders in the opening months of this year — many of them in the past few weeks.
He said he understands why so many are suddenly keen on showing up in Washington to take advantage of the turn in crypto sentiment, and he sees this crowded field of U.S. groups as a net positive when there is so much work to go around getting complex legislation done.
“At some point, there could be too many cooks in the kitchen,” he said. “But I think that’s a problem for a later day.”
Sheila Warren, who recently stepped away as the chief of CCI, said “there’s definitely room for differentiation” in crypto’s growing army of boosters, but she said a united front — in whatever form — is key.
“I think it’s really about coming together and recognizing that we all pretty much want the same things,” she said.
Not all of the groups share the same agendas. Some focus on narrow areas of the industry, and a few are more oriented toward research or serving crypto users rather than companies. Their ranks include Coin Center, Satoshi Action Fund, Bitcoin Policy Institute, Government Blockchain Association and Bitcoin Mining Council. Ripple started the new NCA with an astounding $50 million commitment, and it’s meant to be one of those more interested in the people who use and invest in crypto than the industry players.
On the raw, political edge of advocacy, the industry — especially U.S. exchange Coinbase — has entered the arena. Coinbase set up Stand With Crypto in an effort to jump-start a grass-roots-style crypto movement. That message-of-the-people strategy was bolstered by the extremely well-funded political action committee Fairshake and the dark-money influence arm, Cedar Innovation Foundation.
Fairshake spent more than a hundred million dollars to put friendly lawmakers into congressional seats last year, and the industry is already seeing big, bipartisan support in the early days of the new session. One point of evidence: The Democrats came out in force to join Republicans in killing an Internal Revenue Service rule that could have made existence-threatening demands on decentralized finance (DeFi) projects.
“I think it’s a huge benefit that we have so many organizations dedicated to trying to achieve regulatory clarity for digital assets,” said Amanda Tuminelli, who stepped up to run the DeFi Education Fund when Whitehouse-Levine left. “I think it’s been really needed, especially in the past few years, and when we work together, we actually accomplish great outcomes. For example, the IRS broker rule on DeFi.”
As it tackles those major questions on tax, government crypto reserves, the structure of the markets and regulations of stablecoins, the crypto lobbying space is leaping into a new chapter. That transition is made even more stark with the sudden and dramatic shuffle of leadership.
Kristin Smith, who was the chief of one of the leading groups, left the Blockchain Association to go work for former underling Whitehouse-Levine as president of his new Solana organization. So the association is left shopping for a new CEO. Meanwhile, the founder and longtime leader of the Digital Chamber, Perianne Boring, exited that job for unpaid work leading the board, and the founder of crypto think tank Coin Center similarly departed.
In Warren’s absence at CCI, Ji Kim — the group’s former general counsel and head of global policy — told CoinDesk he remains “laser-focused on ensuring that CCI continues to be the leading, substantive and global voice for our members on key policy issues.” When asked about the potential of organization mergers, he said he had “nothing to say” on that point.
The lobbyists and advocates have routinely come together on letters, events and papers pushing their common aims.
Carbone said there’s “definitely friendliness and conversations between us,” though he said there “needs to be more collaboration.”
However, the groups have practical needs for funding and members, and they’re driven to secure members who can sometimes only afford to join one or two of them.
“There’s obviously a competitiveness angle to this as well,” Carbone acknowledged. “It would be naive to say there’s not, so there’s a race sometimes.”
