American crypto firms are still basking in their electoral victory after pulling off a remarkable political comeback and gaining influence in D.C. last November—but does a brewing civil war among their ranks now threaten to call the honeymoon off?
Last week, President Donald Trump issued a much-anticipated executive order on crypto, making good on a promise to deliver the industry a grab-bag of wishlist items. While the order thrilled many, it was the document’s omission of a single word that threatened to undo a fragile truce among crypto’s competing factions: Bitcoin.
Throughout his campaign, Trump vowed to establish a strategic federal Bitcoin stockpile, which would effectively invest the U.S. government in the world’s top cryptocurrency. Last week’s executive order did indeed call for, among other things, exploring how best to create a federal crypto reserve—but crucially, it referred to a generalized “digital asset” stockpile, not just Bitcoin.
It took mere hours for die-hard Bitcoiners to call foul—and to point the finger at the party they believed was responsible.
“I can confirm Ripple is actively spending millions of dollars trying to undermine a strategic Bitcoin reserve in the United States of America,” Jack Mallers, CEO of Zap, a Bitcoin payments company, declared in an impassioned video uploaded to X shortly after the executive order’s publication.
“This is not just an attack on Bitcoin, but on principles of transparency, on fairness, and on our national security,” he continued.
Soon, other pro-Bitcoin voices in the crypto community piled on with similar theories: Ripple, which holds tens of billions of dollars worth of XRP, a cryptocurrency its founders helped develop, had done everything in its power to prevent the creation of a federal Bitcoin reserve. The company had allegedly done so to ensure that if a digital asset stockpile were ever established, XRP would be included in it as well.
Ripple, so the theory went, was already cashing in its considerable political capital to ensure XRP’s enduring relevance in Washington. The company was one of three crypto-affiliated corporations that led the industry’s incredibly successful, $300 million super PAC strategy last year; just weeks ago, the firm shelled out $5 million for Trump’s inauguration.
If someone had successfully lobbied Trump’s team to remove the word Bitcoin from his crypto executive order, these Bitcoiners wailed, it had to have been Ripple.
Making matters more personal for these Bitcoin maximalists was the perceived difference between the nature of Bitcoin and XRP as assets. A substantial portion of XRP’s total supply is held by Ripple, a private company. Indeed, Ripple’s history with XRP and its sales of the digital asset over the years is the source of the SEC’s ongoing $1.3 billion lawsuit against the company.
Bitcoiners, meanwhile, pride themselves on their preferred token’s decentralized ethos. Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator disappeared years ago without a trace, and the cryptocurrency—by far the most trusted and widely adopted worldwide—is now effectively censorship resistant.
Critics would argue, however, that certain companies, such as Blockstream, hold outsized influence over Bitcoin network development and the asset’s trajectory. Samson Mow, a Blockstream co-founder and a prominent early Bitcoin adopter, is widely credited with helping the country of El Salvador establish its own Bitcoin reserve and classify Bitcoin as legal tender in the Central American nation.
In short order, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse responded to the accusations against his company, but very carefully—arguing that Ripple’s efforts in Washington were working towards the creation of a “crypto strategic reserve.”
Garlinghouse did not engage, however, with accusations that he and others had worked to expand the concept of a Bitcoin strategic reserve to a more general crypto one. He did, however, concede in a Monday X post that Ripple is, in fact, angling to have XRP included in a future U.S. government crypto stockpile.
“If a gov[ernment] digital asset reserve is created, I believe it should be representative of the industry, not just one token (whether it be BTC, XRP, or anything else),” he wrote. Garlinghouse did not immediately respond to Decrypt’s request for comment, nor did a company spokesperson.
Garlinghouse went on to dismiss “maximalism”—such as that expressed by many Bitcoiners—as an “outdated and misinformed” mode of thinking.
“Let me say this as clearly as I can,” he continued. “The crypto industry has a real shot, here and now, to achieve the many goals we have in common, IF we work together instead of tearing each other down.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Bitcoin faction did not opt for the peace pipe.
“We have no goals in common because our goal isn’t to fleece retail investors with blockchain mysticism,” Blockstream’s Mow clapped back at Garlinghouse within minutes. VanEck Head of Digital Assets Research Matthew Sigel likewise rebutted Ripple’s CEO, though in less antagonistic terms: “It's not maximalism to oppose a Strategic Reserve of XRP,” he posted in reply.
Whether the White House will pick sides in the growing internal rift over a government crypto reserve—or have any patience whatsoever for infighting—remains to be seen.
For years, the notion of the U.S. government seriously considering adding any digital asset to a federal stockpile would have been unthinkable. Now, could "chain politics" and intra-industry skirmishes risk the one shot at such an outcome?
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), one of crypto’s fiercest advocates on Capitol Hill, seems to think so. In an interview last week with Politico, she chose remarkably blunt words when asked about the prospect of industry factions failing to work out their differences.
“If they’re not on the same page, they’re done,” Lummis said. “It makes our job almost impossible if they're not on the same page.”
“Man,” she added. “I hope they can speak with one voice.”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
