Charles Hoskinson Blasts USAID for Allegedly Funding Book Linking Bitcoin to Right-Wing Extremism

The controversy has ignited widespread debate in the cryptocurrency community and beyond, as many question the role of government agencies in shaping public narratives about digital assets.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has strongly criticized the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for allegedly financing a book that portrays Bitcoin as being linked to right-wing extremism. The controversy has ignited widespread debate in the cryptocurrency community and beyond, as many question the role of government agencies in shaping public narratives about digital assets.

Hoskinson took to social media to express his frustration over the issue. On X (formerly known as Twitter), he wrote, “So apparently, USAID is funding the production of propaganda that says Bitcoin is right-wing extremism. I’m so done with this garbage.” His remarks highlight his deep concerns regarding how Bitcoin and blockchain technology are being framed in public discourse, particularly by government-backed initiatives.

The book at the center of this controversy is titled “Cyberlibertarianism: The Right-Wing Politics of Digital Technology,” authored by David Golumbia. The book argues that Bitcoin and similar digital technologies have ideological connections to right-wing extremism and cyberlibertarianism, suggesting that these innovations are being used to undermine state control and traditional financial institutions.

Golumbia, an academic and critic of decentralized technologies, has also written another book titled “The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism,” in which he presents a similar argument. These works have been adopted into university curricula, including those at institutions such as Duke University and the University of Southern California.

Reports indicate that Golumbia received approximately $80,000 in government grants, allegedly from USAID, to support his research and publication. This revelation has triggered concerns about the motivations behind funding such work and the potential for government agencies to influence narratives about cryptocurrency in an unfavorable manner.

Hoskinson’s criticism reflects broader sentiments within the cryptocurrency industry, where many believe that Bitcoin and blockchain technology are politically neutral tools designed for financial inclusion and decentralization. Critics argue that labeling Bitcoin as an instrument of right-wing extremism is misleading and ignores the diverse range of individuals and organizations that use it.

Bitcoin has been adopted by people across various political and ideological backgrounds, from activists in authoritarian regimes to financial institutions looking for alternative assets. To many in the crypto space, the suggestion that Bitcoin has inherent political biases contradicts its fundamental principles of decentralization and permissionless access.

This incident raises critical questions about the role of government agencies like USAID in funding research that could carry ideological biases. While USAID is primarily known for its work in international development and humanitarian aid, allegations that it is financing research projects that portray Bitcoin in a negative light suggest a potential overreach into political and economic discourse.

The broader concern is whether government-funded research is being used to shape public perception about digital assets in a way that serves particular political or economic interests. Some experts argue that this kind of funding could be an attempt to discredit cryptocurrencies, which pose a challenge to traditional financial systems and state-controlled monetary policies.

As Bitcoin and blockchain technology continue to gain mainstream adoption, discussions surrounding their role in society will likely become even more polarized. Governments, regulatory bodies, and institutions may continue to attempt to influence public opinion through research and policy measures.

The controversy surrounding USAID’s alleged funding of Golumbia’s book underscores the growing tension between decentralized financial technologies and traditional power structures. While Bitcoin advocates emphasize the technology’s potential for financial empowerment and censorship resistance, critics argue that it could be exploited for illicit activities or used to challenge state authority.