Senator Adam Schiff's proposed crypto ban, the COIN Act, aimed at preventing the President (read: Donald Trump) from dabbling in digital assets, raises a critical question: Is this genuine protection against corruption, or a veiled attempt to stifle innovation, especially for emerging markets? Let's be real, the optics are terrible. Schiff is trying to frame this new provision as a guardrail against Trump’s possible self-dealing. But the implications ripple far beyond Mar-a-Lago.

Whose Interests Are Really Served?

Consider that a potential comprehensive ban is still in the air—one that would hurt many of Southeast Asia’s up-and-coming artists and creators. Now, many of them are using Web3 technologies to go around the centralized gatekeepers. Think about it: these platforms offer a direct connection to a global audience, bypassing exploitative intermediaries and outdated financial systems. Is Schiff’s bill really going to unintentionally punish these folks? It limits their financial freedom just to prevent the Trump campaign from issuing a new “MAGA Coin.”

The irony is so rich, you could cut it with a knife. A united crypto industry, according to reports, dumped millions to defeat Katie Porter, Schiff’s Democratic primary competition who pushed hard for stricter regulation on the crypto industry. And Schiff himself is rated as strongly supportive of the industry by the Stand with Crypto Alliance. The question becomes: what changed? Is this really a change of heart, or a politically expedient play cloaked in the guise of ethical reform?

Innovation's Chokehold or Necessary Evil?

Let's draw an unexpected connection here. We are at the cusp of the next wave of financial innovation. This bill reads like the federal government’s attempt to ban the internet in the 90s just because some people used it to commit all sorts of crimes. Yet the GOP still blocked Schiff’s amendment to the GENIUS Act. Even though motives in politics are routinely doubted, perhaps they had the foresight to see what was possible.

For example, look at Fiserv’s recent launch of its own stablecoin, FIUSD. This is a big reason why major players are attempting to integrate digital assets into the existing financial system. Innovation is happening, and it's happening fast. A blanket ban—even a targeted one at a specific individual—goes far afield and is, in short, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There’s a lot of talk about blockchain technology and its potential to disrupt the world – including supply chains. It can help make government more transparent and financial systems more equitable, too. These benefits are most acute in developing markets. There, corruption and lack of access to formal financial services are huge hurdles. And we can’t ignore the ways that decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) could give more power to communities and encourage participatory governance.

Emerging Markets, Emerging Artists

This isn't just about Bitcoin millionaires. A doodler in Jakarta now sells their drawings as NFTs straight to collectors in an art gallery in Berlin. In doing so, they’re avoiding galleries, which typically take a 50% cut. In Manila, entrepreneurs can get microloans from decentralized peer-to-peer lending platforms. This new opportunity will help them escape the crippling stranglehold of predatory interest rates. It’s about giving them the financial avenues that have been historically out of their reach and building long-lasting economic development from the bottom up.

Now, I am not naive. Crypto has its dark side. Scams, rug pulls and illicit activities are a real concern. We need regulation, absolutely. Smart regulation — in the spirit of innovation, not opposition — is key. It can’t, however, be a blunt instrument that stifles innovation altogether or punishes those who have the most to gain from it.

Perhaps Schiff, and other lawmakers, should focus on targeted measures to combat illicit activities, while fostering a regulatory environment that encourages responsible innovation. Let’s not kid ourselves though—a ban on one individual is really just a bit of political theater stunt. Moreover, it would cause irrevocable damage to emerging artists and economies rather than truly safeguard them from harm. And in today’s environment of misinformation and prevailing economic insecurity, that’s a risky bet to make.

We should all be asking ourselves: does this ban truly align with progressive values of inclusivity and opportunity for marginalized communities, or is it another example of Western-centric regulations inadvertently harming developing economies? Stifling innovation just to keep Trump from launching a memecoin is too much to ask. It’s a bit like employing a sledgehammer to ensure a nut gets cracked. A very expensive nut.