Am I the only one who feels a growing feeling of cognitive dissonance in crypto right now?

The Crypto industry has always had revolutionary roots. It appeared in 2008 with Bitcoin WhitePaper, a direct reaction to the financial crisis that decimated livelihood while protecting a systemically deficient, corrupt banking system. Bitcoin was not just a technical innovation – it was a political and ideological statement. A signal that builders and thinkers were ready to challenge the status quo with tools, not just words.

As someone who has worked in crypto for years, I had to celebrate. Today, decentralized technologies are no longer on the fringe. Fintechs adopts stableecoins. Bitcoin ETFs deal with traditional exchanges. The average person has heard of blockchain. From Capitol Hill to Davos, Crypto no longer laughs out of the room.

But despite this “legitimacy” at the surface level “, I cannot help but feel that something important is lost. Crypto-ethos-cypherpunk values ​​that got us here-diluted, co-selected and in some cases directly betrayed.

Cypherpunk of the movement’s core is that technology can and should be used to rebalans power – away from overreaction of governments and monopolistic companies and to individuals. Peer-to-peer networks, end-to-end encryption, censorship-resistant platform-theses are not buzzwords; They are obligations to improve our community.

Stripe acquisition of crypto infrastructure starter? Great, but it does not create legitimacy in the crypto industry. It is a survival movement from Big Fintech to remain relevant and improve their product offerings. Circle Going Public is a company milestone, not a validation of Crypto’s principles. A Bitcoin ETF can bring liquidity, but it does not bring ideological adjustment.

These fintech marks do not lead a movement – they respond to it. They try to keep up with the crypto-native upstarts that quickly make their older models outdated.

Let’s not confuse acquisition with validation. Just because the suits are now interested in the tools we have built does not mean that they understand, respect or intend to maintain the reasons why these tools exist.

Crypto should not be another tool in the state. It must be the counterweight.

So it is understandable that the recent Uptick in political commitment and clearer legislative framework – such as brilliant action – is being as progress. Applications such as Coinbase and Polymarket win household recognition. President Bid’s successor has even expanded an olive branch to the industry.

But somewhere along the way it seems that many of us have lost the action.

A shining example? Coinbas’s recent sponsorship of a military parade affiliated with President Trump.

This is not a partial criticism. It is a principle. Coinbase’s mission declaration emphasizes that political reasons are a “distraction from our mission.” Nevertheless, in practice, the company has repeatedly adapted to political events from sponsoring the president’s inauguration funds to go for political advantage with accelerated hiring of ex-dog employees.

CEO Brian Armstrong’s recent request of former DODE employees is quite a grip: “If you are looking for your next mission after serving your country, you may want to consider helping to create a more effective financial system for the world at Coinbase.”

This framing – which creates Coinbases mission to the state – epitomizes the creeping fusion between Crypto’s stewards and the very power structures we were intended to counteract.

Yes, Coinbase is a publicly traded company. Yes, it operates in a jurisdiction ruled by laws and politics. But being compatible does not mean to be co-selected. Sponsorship of political events, adaptation to political figures and to turn a surplus from proximity to power undermine the ethical foundation of decentralized technology.

And coinbase is not alone. Crypto-funded Super PACs pour money into choice at all levels. Ripple is now a lobbying company Juggernaut in DC, we still expect the dizzying corruption that was FTX-where political donations and influence of influence were tools for manipulation, not participation.

This is not a smooth slope. We are already sliding.

Cypherpunkism is more than an aesthetic or an ideology. It is an obligation to build systems that make centralized power outdated – not tolerated or negotiated with, but irrelevant. It is about building tools that strengthen individuals, preserve privacy and promote a more open and elastic society.

Crypto founders, investors and institutions need to revise these roots. Blockchain’s purpose is not to repeat traditional systems of shiny branding on politicized military gatherings – it is basic to change how these systems work. To create a future where financial freedom, privacy and open access are not privileges, but standard settings.

Yes, we need to cooperate with regulators. Yes, we need to work within a legal framework. But that’s far from becoming their cheerleaders. There is a difference between navigating the system and being consumed by it. There is a difference between playing the game and forgetting why you joined it in the first place.

We owe that movement – and to ourselves – to remember why crypto exists. Not to reassure governments, but to keep them in charge. Not to win political advantage, but to make such a benefit unnecessary. Not to build brands, but to build freedom.

The real cypherpunks are still out there. But it’s time we get our voices heard again.