O P I N I O N
THE SOAPBOX
Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.
I will be opposing HB 639, the so-called “cryptocurrency freedom” bill now before the Senate. Despite its libertarian rhetoric of innovation and “financial opportunity,” the measure is a blueprint for deregulation that would invite precisely the abuses and inequalities that scholar Finn Brunton warns of in his recent New York Times essay on the true nature of cryptocurrency.
Brunton argues that crypto has become “a machine for transferring control and wealth from the many to the few.” What began as a populist experiment in decentralized money has metastasized into a system dominated by the same extractive forces it claimed to disrupt: private capital, authoritarian investors, and corporate technocrats seeking freedom not for people but from oversight. HB 639, by exempting cryptocurrency operations from local regulation and treating them as ordinary business activities, effectively locks in that same asymmetry here in New Hampshire.
1. Crypto Is Not Economic Democracy — It’s Deregulated Capitalism in Code
Supporters of HB 639 claim that crypto “democratizes finance” by letting ordinary people invest outside elite institutions. In practice, as Brunton notes, crypto reproduces the same hierarchies — only faster, less visible, and with fewer rules. The wealthiest investors and mining operations capture disproportionate rewards, while small-scale participants bear volatility and loss.
We should not confuse participation with empowerment. The mere ability to buy tokens does not equal access to economic security. HB 639’s nondiscrimination clause would bar towns and cities from even modestly restraining crypto activities that could destabilize local power grids, drive up electricity costs, or draw speculative capital away from productive uses. It’s not economic freedom — it’s freedom for speculators at the expense of workers and communities.
2. The Myth of Innovation Without Oversight
HB 639 frames regulation as “discrimination,” suggesting that any local effort to limit crypto mining or enforce consumer safeguards is anti-innovation. That framing is deeply misleading. Innovation without accountability is not progress; it’s predation.
As Brunton warns, crypto’s ideology of disintermediation — the fantasy of cutting out “middlemen” like banks, regulators, or governments — actually masks a deeper consolidation of power. Instead of public oversight, we get unaccountable code, opaque algorithms, and anonymous ownership structures. The promise of decentralization becomes a shell game where responsibility disappears.
If New Hampshire codifies this ideology into law, we effectively invite an industry that operates by evading the very rules designed to protect consumers, investors, and the environment.
3. Energy, Environment, and Equity
Crypto’s defenders insist that new “proof-of-stake” systems have solved the energy problem. But Brunton reminds us that the story of crypto is a moving target of excuses — each technological fix promised to offset harms that persist or simply migrate elsewhere.
Even if newer coins consume less electricity, mining operations still siphon public resources — land use, power infrastructure, and broadband — to serve speculative gain. HB 639’s nondiscrimination language would tie the hands of local governments trying to ensure that energy development benefits residents, not private crypto farms.
Democrats should not endorse a bill that disempowers local control over how communities manage their own resources. Climate justice means aligning technology with sustainability, not giving a free pass to energy-intensive speculation masquerading as progress.
4. Economic Fairness and the False Promise of Inclusion
The sponsors of HB 639 argue that restricting crypto denies ordinary people investment opportunities available to the wealthy. But as Brunton writes, crypto’s world is one where “wealth makes the rules.” The early adopters and exchange operators already hold outsized influence; they thrive on volatility that devastates retail investors.
HB 639 would not democratize opportunity — it would normalize risk without safety nets. No FDIC insurance, no fraud recovery, no consumer recourse. We have already seen pensioners, teachers, and small savers wiped out in exchange collapses like FTX. Why would New Hampshire endorse a policy that exposes our residents to similar harm under the banner of “choice”?
The wealthy will always have lawyers, accountants, and early access. The working class will have only slogans about freedom.
5. Democracy Versus the Digital Oligarchy
Perhaps Brunton’s most chilling warning is that crypto’s “techno-utopian” vision is fundamentally anti-democratic. It seeks to replace governance by people with governance by protocols — private, permanent, and unaccountable. When we remove human judgment, we remove human responsibility.
HB 639 would push New Hampshire down that road, privileging corporate code over civic consent. We would enshrine in statute a principle that technology should operate above local law. That is not progress — it’s surrender.
Conclusion: Regulation Is Not Repression — It’s Protection
Democrats have always believed that good government is the guarantor of fairness, transparency, and shared prosperity. HB 639 rejects that philosophy. It mistakes deregulation for freedom and speculation for progress.
Finn Brunton reminds us that behind the glittering promise of crypto lies “a bribery-as-a-service platform for buying and selling influence among oligarchs.” We should take him seriously.
I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on HB 639. Let us reaffirm that economic innovation must serve the public good — not the powerful few. The future of money, energy, and technology must remain accountable to the people, not to the algorithms.
State Rep. David Preece serves Hillsborough District 17, in Manchester.
Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment below using our DISQUS app. Got issues of your own? Submissions can be sent to publisher@inklink.news, subject line: The Soapbox. Or you can DIY it here.