Why blockchains cannot afford to pick a side in politics.

In a post on Twitter, Rocket Pool community advocate jasperthefriendlyghost.eth made an interesting point about surviving in the long-term in crypto. Blockchains that tie themselves to national politics expose themselves to risks that they cannot control.

Jasper believes that Solana made a big mistake by becoming actively involved in U.S. politics. When a network gets associated with one country or one political side or whatever, it stops being neutral infrastructure and starts becoming a political tool instead. This is something that makes an ecosystem a lot more fragile. Jasper says that blockchains should be 'suprapolitical megastructures' that exist above borders, elections and changing power. The moment one chain attaches itself to the old political world it inherits all of its instability. This cannot be.

Jasper's argument was a reply to another tweet, which had been posted by chainyoda. Chainyoda said that Ethereum has already survived pressure from regulators, politicians and governments across the spectrum. This resilience comes from core values like decentralization and neutrality, not lobbying. Ethereum does not need, and will never need political favors to work.. it just keeps running. In a world where geopolitics change very fast this might be the most underrated feature that a blockchain can have.

Resources:

• https://x.com/drjasper_eth/status/2008333164167545159
• https://x.com/chainyoda/status/2008330970991059311