Are Politician Tokens the Future of Bribery?

Vitalik Buterin recently pointed out that tokens tied to politicians could serve as tools for bribery.

But I think it’s not that straightforward.

Let’s take the $TRUMP token as an example: 80% of the supply is concentrated in the issuer’s address, and the issuer is likely connected to the politician or even fully controlled by him. If someone were to buy tokens directly from the issuer and later a political decision favored that buyer, the bribe would be glaringly obvious - after all, public blockchains are transparent.

So, Vitalik was probably referring to a different scheme: where the bribe happens through buying tokens on the open market, not directly from the issuer. Such purchases would drive up the token’s price, thereby increasing the value of the 80% stash held by the issuer.

But here’s the interesting part. This kind of bribe wouldn’t just benefit politicians - it would also benefit their supporters. When we buy a crypto asset, it usually means we believe in the project behind it and want to support it, at least at the moment of purchase. This logic applies to all cryptocurrencies - whether it’s $TRUMP, $ETH, or anything else. In fact, it even applies to stocks.

The difference is that with stocks, we get a share of the business and its profits. With cryptocurrencies, we mostly receive nothing but a sense of belonging to the project. The exception is projects like ViteX, which distribute profits among token holders.

But now, we could see a scenario where people who support a politician by buying their tokens might also profit directly if that politician remains in power.

Or does Vitalik believe bribery wouldn’t exist without tokens? I think it would - it’d just happen without benefiting regular people.

Curious? Thinking about swapping your crypto for politician tokens? The first one has been available for exchange on rabbit.io since its launch day.