Notes from the CIO
November’s elections will have a profound impact on the crypto industry, shaping the US regulatory landscape and its leadership in the global digital economy.
In my July article, Crypto’s Political Influence Is Accelerating—Does It Matter?, I noted the importance of digital assets becoming a powerful political force, with both parties vying for the support of crypto-savvy voters. The key takeaway of this election cycle? Crypto is on the ballot.
A recent study from HarrisX and Consensys reveals the growing importance of crypto policies among voters, with 49% of Americans viewing crypto regulation as a key issue in the elections. The study also indicates that crypto owners are more willing to cross party lines to support candidates aligned with the industry, amplifying the influence of these voters in swing districts.
U.S. Voters are on net +13 pts more likely to consider a candidate outside their party if they support their preferred pro-Crypto policies, highlighting the power to sway voters on this issue.
Source: HarrisX/Consensys Study 2024
The HarrisX/Consensys study highlights that crypto is now a bipartisan issue, with advocacy groups, Super PACs, and industry stakeholders pouring millions into key races. These efforts aim to elect candidates supportive of clearer crypto regulation, many of whom are challenging incumbents aligned with more restrictive frameworks.
A crypto Congress?
While the presidential contest has captured the spotlight, the outcome of several Senate and House races could determine whether the US embraces crypto innovation in the coming years.
To assess how this election could impact crypto policy, the Hashdex team has looked into some of the key races that could be most impactful.
There could be several new pro-crypto US Senators and as many as 13 new pro-crypto members of the House of Representatives in 2025, according to a recent Politico article, and these lawmakers could have a very positive impact on crypto policy. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key races that could be impactful.
1. US Senate, Ohio – Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) vs. Bernie Moreno (R)
As chair of the US Senate Banking Committee, Senator Sherrod Brown has been one of the most vocal critics of crypto in the US Senate, advocating for stricter oversight.1 His opponent, Bernie Moreno, conversely offers a significantly different industry-friendly alternative. Moreno, an Ohio businessman, has a blockchain background himself, founding Champ Titles, which puts car titles on a blockchain.2 With the industry’s backing, a Moreno victory could tip the scales towards bipartisan legislation on stablecoins and crypto exchanges.
Why it matters: A Brown loss could have major ramifications for the Senate Banking Committee, which plays a pivotal role in crafting legislation and overseeing regulatory agencies like the SEC and CFTC. If Moreno wins, control of the committee could shift, potentially paving the way for bipartisan efforts on key issues such as stablecoin regulation, crypto exchange oversight, and addressing ambiguity over whether digital assets are securities or commodities.
2. US Senate, Montana – Sen. Jon Tester (D) vs. Tim Sheehy (R)
Senator Tester is a crypto skeptic, favoring enforcement-heavy approaches. In December of 2022, Tester argued that “crypto has no real value.”3 Despite these comments, Tester was one of 12 Senate Democrats that voted in favor of repealing SAB 121, a rule that places restrictions on banks that wish to custody crypto assets. 4
Tester’s challenger, Tim Sheehy, wants to foster innovation, especially in the crypto industry. Some industry players have pledged hundreds of thousands to the Montana senate race in favor of Sheehy,5 arguing that Tester has held mixed views on the subject in the past. With Tester among the most vulnerable incumbents in a state heavily in favor of Donald Trump, this race is seen as critical to shifting the Senate’s stance on crypto regulation.
Why it matters: A Sheehy win could strengthen calls by many Republicans to curb the SEC’s jurisdiction and promote clearer industry-friendly policies through the CFTC. However, with Tester’s vote on SAB 121, questions remain whether Tester’s views have shifted more in favor of crypto than his critics may argue.
3. US Senate, Massachusetts – Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) vs. John Deaton (R)
This race is drawing national attention due to Senator Warren’s efforts to impose strict regulations on the crypto industry, even attempting to create an “anti-crypto army” in the US. Warren is a leading advocate for tighter oversight, framing digital assets as a threat to financial stability and consumer protection. Her challenger, John Deaton, is a crypto lawyer that has built a reputation for defending digital assets and criticizing regulatory overreach. Deaton has put Warren’s vehement anti-crypto stance at the center of his campaign,6 which focuses on calling for clearer rules that foster growth without stifling the industry.
Why it matters: While Warren holds a comfortable lead over Deaton in a heavily Democratic state, the support of many Senate Democrats for repealing SAB 121 suggests that Warren’s ability to shape crypto policy is waning. This is important to note, as bipartisan support— specifically in a deeply polarized Congress—can shift a precarious balance between voices of moderation or voices of extremism on the issue of crypto regulatory clarity.
4. US House, California’s 16th District: Sam Liccardo (D) vs. Evan Low (D)
The outcome of this race between two Democrats to replace a retiring congresswoman carries significant implications for the relationship between the tech industry and DC policymakers. Two well-known Democrats—Sam Liccardo, former mayor of San Jose, and Evan Low, a California State Assembly member—are vying to represent Silicon Valley. The winner will help shape how Democrats engage with tech companies, including crypto businesses, in 2025 and beyond.
Liccardo’s platform leans toward greater scrutiny of Big Tech. He has called for holding companies accountable by making them liable for failing to meet industry standards, particularly on issues like child safety and content moderation. Evan Low, meanwhile, has taken a more collaborative approach. As co-chair of the California Technology and Innovation Caucus, Low has a history of working with tech companies and supporting innovation.
Why it matters: While this race won’t shift the balance of power in Congress, the winner will shape California Democrats’ approach to tech (and by extension crypto) regulation. Liccardo’s enforcement-heavy stance could signal a more confrontational tone with Silicon Valley, affecting both tech innovation and crypto-friendly policies. Low’s industry-friendly posture, on the other hand, could provide more breathing room for blockchain and fintech firms, offering a more balanced path forward for digital innovation in the region.
5. US House, Washington’s 6th District - Emily Randall (D) vs Drew MacEwan (R)
This race is shaping up to have broad implications for tech, crypto, and financial innovation policies at the federal level. Randall has routinely commented that she believes in “driving technological innovation and economic growth, including through blockchain technology and the digital asset industry.”7 Historically, progressives at the federal level have held a stronger anti-crypto stance, however Randall has bucked that convention. She raised almost $1.5 million dollars from pro-crypto groups to beat her Democratic primary opponent8 and has continued support for crypto regulatory clarity headed into her general election vs MacEwen, a state representative and entrepreneur, who is pro-crypto and free markets.
Why it matters: This race showcases the changing bipartisan landscape of crypto support in Congress. Randall, and other pro-crypto Democrats, are showcasing crypto can no longer be categorized as a wedge issue among voters. Races where candidates recognize that new technologies shouldn’t be considered inherently political is a good thing for the crypto space, and will lead to greater understanding of the digital asset space within the political class.
Crypto’s Bipartisan Appeal: What It Means for Investors
As highlighted by the HarrisX/Consensys study, voters are increasingly willing to switch political parties based on candidates’ positions on crypto—a shift that could tip the scales in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. With crypto owners emerging as a decisive constituency, these elections are becoming a referendum on regulatory clarity and innovation-friendly policies.
The growing alignment between crypto investors and political candidates signals that the outcomes of these contests will directly impact the trajectory of the crypto industry. Key Senate and House races will determine not only the composition of committees but also the ability to pass stablecoin frameworks, exchange rules, and crypto asset classifications. Furthermore, a pro-crypto Senate could put pressure on regulatory agency appointees to adopt a balanced regulatory approach, helping the US not fall behind in blockchain innovation.
At Hashdex, we are closely monitoring these developments to adjust our strategies to align with the post-election regulatory environment. As I wrote last month, I continue to believe this technology, like the internet, is not political by nature and will over time become less partisan. Regardless of how fast this happens, we believe the shift from the current administration to the next, regardless of which party wins, will be a net positive for crypto investors.
1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/09/20/ohio-senate-race-crypto-cash/
2 https://www.axios.com/2024/10/01/moreno-brown-senate-crypto-money-trump
3 https://x.com/MeetThePress/status/1601968382420701187
4 https://blockworks.co/news/senate-gensler-sec-overturn-sab-121
6 https://blockworks.co/news/elizabeth-warren-challenger-senate
____________________________
This material expresses Hashdex Asset Management Ltd. and its subsidiaries and affiliates (“Hashdex”)'s opinion for informational purposes only and does not consider the investment objectives, financial situation or individual needs of one or a particular group of investors. We recommend consulting specialized professionals for investment decisions. Investors are advised to carefully read the prospectus or regulations before investing their funds.
The information and conclusions contained in this material may be changed at any time, without prior notice. Nothing contained herein constitutes an offer, solicitation or recommendation regarding any investment management product or ser vice. This information is not directed at or intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity located in any jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to applicable law or regulation or which would subject Hashdex to any registration or licensing requirements within such jurisdiction.
These opinions are derived from internal studies and do not have access to any confidential information. Please note that future events may not unfold as anticipated by our team’s research and analysis. No part of this material may be (i) copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means or (ii) redistributed without the prior written consent of Hashdex.
By receiving or reviewing this material, you agree that this material is confidential intellectual property of Hashdex and that you will not directly or indirectly copy, modify, recast, publish or redistribute this material and the information therein, in whole or in part, or other wise make any commercial use of this material without Hashdex’s prior written consent.
Investment in any investment vehicle and crypto assets is highly speculative and is not intended as a complete investment program. It is designed only for sophisticated persons who can bear the economic risk of the loss of their entire investment and who have limited need for liquidity in their investment. There can be no assurance that the investment vehicles will achieve its investment objective or return any capital. No guarantee or representation is made that Hashdex’s investment strategy, including, without limitation, its business and investment objectives, diversification strategies or risk monitoring goals, will be successful, and investment results may var y substantially over time.
Nothing herein is intended to imply that the Hashdex s investment methodology or that investing any of the protocols or tokens listed in the Information may be considered “conservative,” “safe,” “risk free,” or “risk averse.” These opinions are derived from internal studies and do not have access to any confidential information. Please note that future events may not unfold as anticipated by our team’s research and analysis.
Certain information contained herein (including financial information) has been obtained from published and unpublished sources. Such information has not been independently verified by Hashdex, and Hashdex does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such information. Hashdex does not provide tax, accounting or legal advice. Certain information contained herein constitutes for ward-looking statements, which can be identified by the use of terms such as “may,” “ will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “estimate,” “intend,” “continue” “believe” (or the negatives thereof ) or other variations thereof. Due to various risks and uncertainties, including those discussed above, actual events or results, the ultimate business or activities of Hashdex and its investment vehicles or the actual performance of Hashdex, its investment vehicles, or digital tokens may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such for ward-looking statements.
As a result, investors should not rely on such for ward- looking statements in making their investment decisions. None of the information contained herein has been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or any other governmental or self-regulator y authority. No governmental authority has opined on the merits of Hashdex’s investment vehicles or the adequacy of the information contained herein.
Nasdaq® is a registered trademark of Nasdaq, Inc. The information contained above is provided for informational and educational purposes only, and nothing contained herein should be construed as investment advice, either on behalf of a particular digital asset or an overall investment strategy. Neither Nasdaq, Inc. nor any of its affiliates makes any recommendation to buy or sell any digital asset or any representation about the financial condition of a digital asset. Statements regarding Nasdaq proprietary indexes are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investors should undertake their own due diligence and carefully evaluate assets before investing. ADVICE FROM A FINANCIAL PROFESSIONAL IS STRONGLY ADVISED.