Crypto advertising has often tried to sell a revolution.
“If all goes well, do not change anything,” explains the last television advertisement Coinbase, because Great Britain collapses in the background. FTX AD by Larry David compared Crypto to the invention of the wheel, although his character was not convinced.
But even the campaigns that are not so provocative are always inseparable from the vision of the world of industry. A vision of the world that questions the financial and societal standards that we are experiencing.
Crypto products raise questions around control, access and confidence. And this is why messaging and industry advertisements are so often read as a plea. This political vision of the world is also one of the reasons why industry and its advertising have been faced with so much suppression over the years.
Since its creation, the digital asset industry has positioned itself as a stimulating and democratic force. He questioned centralized monetary policy and proposed alternatives to the operation of traditional financial systems. These are not neutral positions.
This threat to the rooted systems posed by the industry is a factor for the reasons why the regulations around what digital asset companies can do or say so long to develop. Even today, when advertisements from cryptographic companies approach these systemic criticisms, some public members are offending and regulators are hindering distribution.
The British announcement now infamous of Coinbase, which takes the spirit of plea from crypto to its logical and creative conclusion, is a perfect example. His message, that the crypto offers a potential response to a broken economy, may not have mentioned a party or a candidate, but he nevertheless made a strong statement on politics and pointed out on what does not work in modern Britain.
Clearcast, the organization that says yes or no to which the announcements can work on British television networks, disapproved of the announcement on the grounds that it “presented the cryptocurrency as a potential solution to economic challenges, without sufficient evidence for this assertion or any warning on volatility and potential risks”.
However, even if cryptographic messaging is faced with the rejection of regulators and dissemination platforms, the main political actors, especially in the United States, are starting to adopt it.
Not despite his political tone, but because of this.
During a recent panel, the Trump strategist Chris Lacivita and the Democrat activist David Plouffe have reached a rare agreement: the crypto is now a political problem that deserves to be supported. Lacivita called him a “classic growth problem”, opening doors to young and minority voters, while Plouffe warned:
“Tens of millions of Americans have a great desire to be part of it. So, as a politician, it is very dangerous to say: we will ignore you. ”
Lacivita and Plouffe said that cryptographic property has become such an important social question that it can influence whole voter blocks. The parties take note of it, stimulate positions and reshape financial ecosystems when they gain.
In a world where even the idea of a unique cryptographic voter is taken seriously by campaign strategists, how can the industry seem political?
The argument for the management of advertising which addresses political questions differently has been raging for more than a decade, since social media has become a dominant force in modern American electoral cycles. What started as a concern about transparency in democratic campaigns has since evolved into a much broader question: who can speak, and in what terms, when the message questions the status quo?
Regulators and distribution platforms often claim that there is a clear technical line between political and non -political content. In practice, this is not how it works. What matters as a policy often depends on the climate of the moment. Messaging authorized for a year can be blocked in the next because the rules are modified by social media platforms or legislative organizations.
Take the new Transparency and targeting of the Political Advertising Act For example. This new rule which should come into force in October 2025 will tighten what is considered to be a political content, expanding the definition to include any announcement that may influence public opinion on politics. In response to this, Meta and Google have already declared that they would end all political, electoral and social advertisements in the EU when the rules are in force in October. This is a perfect example of a regulation which, although well -intentioned, could one day cause unhappy roadblocks.
If cryptographic advertisements are increasingly like a political discourse, it is not a mistake. This is a reflection of what the product really represents, and online media platforms should not hinder.
The future of the industry is that where digital assets become an increasingly present part of our daily life. As these technologies become more deeply rooted, the alternatives they offer will not become more important for people. The inclination of “crypto-electro” during the United States electoral cycle in 2024 will undoubtedly be reproduced in other democracies around the world and more parties will be part of their political platforms.
There will be more and more cryptographic advertisements that speak directly of the social problems represented by industry. This is something that should be expected and embraced, not feared or deleted. In order for innovations to have an impact, we must allow their communications to be provocative, outspokenness and, by all means – political.
It was not until this moment that we can have open and honest conversations on what is broken in our current system and how we could repair it.
