yellow manual - applied politics for the crypto industry
Moderation is not an ideology1. It is not an opinion.
It is not a thought. Likewise, it is an absence of thought.
In other words, the problem with moderation is that the “center” is not fixed. It moves. And since it moves, and people being people, people will try to move it. This creates an incentive for violence, but we should not look at this as a moral problem, rather as an engineering problem. Any solution that solves the problem is acceptable.
Any solution that does not solve the problem is not acceptable.
This manual exists because it was required. Under normal circumstances, such a manual would’ve never been written because the author does not believe such information can be conveyed without on-deck coordination. With that said, it exists, and it serves a purpose.1
This manual cannot solve systemic problems; it cannot deliver miracles, and it cannot turn the world upside down.
This manual can and does provide the primary guidance to building the tools necessary in order for a competent enough force to try to alleviate some problems currently faced by the crypto industry and some of the problems that will soon befall on that said industry.
This document’s purpose is to analyze, provide strategic knowledge and easy-to-follow instructions meant to fulfill the goal(s) agreed upon.
We start with a SWOT analysis because this industry is itself brand new. It literally did not exist less than 15 years ago. With that said, it does not mean that hundreds-years-old knowledge cannot be applied to it. It sure can, but there are challenges uniquely associated to this cause that do not exist with almost all others.
With that out of the way, then we can proceed to the kind of people needed for the operation, institutional architecture, how to use it, country-specific issues and, finally, some conclusions.
We use the term “pattern” meaning relevant to our protocol, and “anti-pattern” to represent a more subjective interpretation or one that is hard to automate to determine should it be included or not.
Anti Patterns for Governance Proposals
- Proposals that address a problem that has not been defined
- Proposals that addresses a problem that no longer exists
- The Proposals addresses more than one problem
- Proposals that has no stated purpose
- The language of the Proposals is vague or complex
- Proposals is unable to achieve its stated goal
Axioms and Principles for Governance Actions
Requirements (the need for a new law) is realized by Principle (the to-be law)
If you are in the business of producing laws, then the law is a Business Object
Governance / Legal elements are not passive.
This document does not seek to define an imperative set but rather relational sets.
Restrictions of freedom perpetrated through explicit threats should not be any more prima facie problematic than restrictions perpetrated via other means.1
Patterns for Finding Important Governance Patterns
We use the term “pattern” meaning relevant to our protocol, and “anti pattern” to represent a more subjective interpretation or one that is hard to automate to determine should it be included or not.
- Law that addresses a problem that has not been defined
- Law that addresses a problem that no longer exists
- The law addresses more than one problem
- Law that has no stated purpose
- The language of the law is vague or complex
- Law is unable to achieve its stated goal
- Laws that address problems that have not been defined
- Laws that address problems that no longer exist
- Laws that address more than one problem in different domains
- Laws that lack a stated, measurable problem-solving the goal, or purpose
- Laws that fail to achieve their goal or lack stated goals
- Laws that lack a citation of references
- Laws whose burdens are greater than their problem-solving benefit
- Laws whose problem-solving benefit and burdens are equal
- Laws whose results cannot be measured
- Laws that interfere with other laws
- Laws that duplicate other laws
- Requires Review
- Laws that are not enforced*
- Laws that are overly vague or complex*
- Laws that have not undergone QA analysis within a specified time frame
Governance Primitives for (Potential) Smart Contract Events / Emits
Now that we have established governance patterns and a classification system, we can begin to map out how these relationships present themselves, either by acting upon, being acted upon, events, etc.
To execute the task(s) at hand, there are aspects that need to be kept in mind always throughout the execution of the task(s) until or if reality changes. The crypto industry itself is volatile so, for all intends and purposes, reality itself may very well change as far as the industry is concerned. Which is why this SWOT analysis is not be believed as exhaustive for more than 24 months from the time this material has been produced.
The industry is new. Which means it can attract public (think: agitation) support from people otherwise opposed to the ideals the author of this manual holds dear (think: progressives, hipsters, techno-optimists, etc.)
The industry naturally attracts people who distrust government. Which means the cost of training the people into the operation is lower since they no longer have to be convinced that the State is not their friend.
Cryptocurrency is difficult to use, difficult to explain to the public and, so far, of limited use for normies.
Now, sure, the counter-argument would be that exchanges exist and all sorts of websites/firms/services now exist with a friendly interface that can mitigate the difficulty of use by removing the necessity of holding one’s wallet. Of course, that also means those exchanges are subjected to regulation (by removing anonymity, for starters) thus removing the point of crypto and also torpedoing the oft-used talking point that “crypto is like cash, but better”. It most obviously is not. It can become, maybe, but it is not as of the current moment.
This weakness may change some day. But if the industry goes like the way of FOSS (which also appeared as an “alternative” to “corporate industry” with their “free as in freedom software”) - this is highly unlikely to happen.
Bottom line: Anyone who doesn’t understand that cryptocurrency is here to stay as a niche instrument because it’s difficult to use and of limited use for normies, cannot be of help in the execution of the task(s) at hand.
In crypto circles, this is countered by all sorts of ‘copium’ and dodgy numbers.
For instance, the most “reliable” figure on crypto use says 4.2% of the global population, or 320 million people are using crypto^1. If that were true, that would make crypto about a tenth of the video game market (which now stands at around 3.24 billion people).
(^1) https://triple-a.io/crypto-ownership-data/ (archived link: https://archive.ph/wip/EJUcD )
The comparison with videogame industry is not random. Videogames are in and of themselves a niche, culturally and legislatively speaking. #Gamergate was partial success even though it was backed by almost 50% of the global population.
Crypto, being a tenth of that, stands no chance of defending itself in public in the culture.
But the reality is that crypto is not even that. Heck, the source for that number comes from a dodgy website that ends in .io (a red flag for any normie) that claims to represent a company registered with the Central Bank of Singapore - which means it’s a no-go for privacy-minded people since their exchange, in effect, is nothing more than glorified CBDC.
Cryptocurrency is very easy to demonize in public propaganda, especially by the Regime
This cannot change for as long as cryptocurrency remains very difficult to use.
Crypto currencies can be hard to trace. Which means any operation to defend the cryptoindustry can attract the support of people one wouldn’t normally think of when it comes to a lobbying operation (think: criminals, the underworld, etc.)
Increasing adoption can only happen if crypto becomes easier to use while at the same time maintaining all of its selling points. Any financing of that should be considered (incl. from dodgy sources) - since it would help the industry as a whole
Being marginal also means any operation benefits from the element of surprise. Nobody expects a crypto lobbyist. Just like nobody expected a gamer lobbyist.
The crypto industry is based on almost blind trust in technology. In order for the task(s) on hand to be effectively executed, the exact opposite mentality will be needed
The Regime. This threat, of course, will never go away. Apologies for stating the obvious
Internal mess. The fact that the industry is new means there are no rules. Oftentimes that’s a great thing, but it’s also a threat in multiple ways:
- in propaganda: The Regime can always credibly say it’s an industry of crooks because routinely crooks do thrive in this industry
- in agitation: Almost all crypto-bros are cringe and routinely shady (this can be mitigated by growing your own crypto-bros that are not cringe or shady)
Necessary institutional architecture/organizational structure
To execute the task(s) ahead of you, the organizational structure has to mimic the one of a PIA (Private Intelligence Agency).
The author is not aware of the budget and dedication that the reader has committed for this, so the author will assume a mid-tier of both. It should be noted that the structure proposed is modular. That is to say that, depending on the budget and assets available, the organizational structure can lack some of the elements and still kinda work (with the obvious trade-off of decreased effectiveness).
The following graph represents an adaptation (and a slight downsizing) of the structure of AggregateIQ.
Please notice the arrows. Where the arrow is drawn, it means the individuals know each other. Where there aren’t, then they shouldn’t be knowing each other.
The task(s) required by the reader can best be executed if as fewer people as possible know the whole agenda. All intel should be transmitted on a “need to know” basis. No more than three people should be aware of the entirety of the agenda. And even three is too risky - but fewer than three jeopardizes the execution so it’s a trade-off that can’t be avoided.
All that is in the pink circle represents the leadership. These 7 people should be meeting all in person as rare as possible (no more than twice a year, preferably once every other year). At the same time, these 7 people should be communicating with each other electronically as rare as possible (preferably never, but that’s very difficult to achieve in this day and age). It goes without saying that when they do communicate electronically, all traces should be shredded as soon as possible.
In terms of legal entities needed: an advocacy grou/ NGO and a think-tank (which is usually an NGO as well) are needed.
These need to be “serious” institutions. They will be glorified paid shills alright, but they need to be able to provide very serious policy papers and talking points and must not be officially connectable to each other.
The purpose is to create the illusion of a societal debate in which a think tank (yours) happens to agree with some of the goals of a random advocacy group (also yours, made to be harsher than needed) and then their research to be picked up by a serious academic (your paid shills in the institutions). Once that process is done, the lobbyist can start his work.
Depending on the budget this operation has, underneath the blue circles, new circles can emerge. That is to say, each of the four blue circles can be free to create their own networks. In fact, if possible, it is preferable this happens as long as they don’t know of each other.
Those in the advocacy group must not know that their work is the primary research for a serious think tank. Those in the think tank must not know that their work is expected and thoroughly read by a paid shill in the institutions that’s on the same payroll as they are.
Also, nobody from the blue circles (and most definitely from the circles beneath them) must know more than two people from the pink circle. Ideally, nobody from beneath the blue circles should know anyone from the pink circle.
The more rigid the chain of command is kept, the faster the results can be delivered.
Enforcing those limits can prove to be quite a challenge (working with people is the hardest job), but it’s doable with the right incentives.
Who to recruit
There are two different criteria depending on the circle. Going for each of them.
The pink circle
In the leadership structure, the loyalty should always be personal rather than institutional. Loyalty to the individuals make the world go around. Institutions come and go, personal loyalty stays.
Generally, these are the conditions:
- male (always male!)
- speaker of at least two languages besides English (Arabic, Afrikaans, Russian, Spanish and Mandarin are the most common languages besides English in this space)
- ability to develop personal loyalty (pre-existent loyalty is preferable)
- willingness to accept irregular work schedule at weird/uncommon hours
- pre-existent experience in intelligence is preferable
- little or no family obligations (or willingness and ability to manage them competently if such obligations exist)
The policy wonk should be from outside the industry. The current or former deep state should be very knowledgeable in the industry. If you catch a true believer that also fits the criteria, you’ve hit jackpot (nobody is more hard working than a recent convert). The jurist/lawyer is preferable to have experience in/with the criminal underworld.
The NGO circle
The person running your NGO should be someone who has run non-profits in the designated country before. Ideally, someone at least partially acquainted with the notion of strategic messaging.
The head of the NGO should have a personal loyalty to you or someone in the pink circle.
The head of the NGO is the most trusted person outside the pink circle. He needs to deliver the strategic messaging, recruit volunteers, manage fundraisers, build up a positive image in the community (e.g. children’s camps, feeding the homeless, etc.). The NGO is the propaganda arm that the public sees.
For instance, for great public impact, a campaign to feed the homeless should be funded by legally dodgy fundraising through crypto. Thus draw attention to the public how a force for good is hampered by paranoid policies of the State.
The head of the NGO should be a person that has no qualms in calling “national security” names and be ruthless in opinion pieces / editorials about it.
The head of the NGO should be someone not known as a conservative/libertarian. Should be someone whose paid articles would be taken up by Washington Post, New York Times, and others. He should always be known as “Executive director of [your NGO]” and be as hard as possible for the Regime media to tie him with any non-Leftist causes.
At first, the best course of action is to hire one of the existent ones, or a lobbying firm. And then, in time, try to either “steal the profession” (i.e. have someone of your own learn how to do it from a pro and in time take his place) or “steal the employee” (the lobbyist the firm gives to your ends up on your payroll) if he is that good.
Of course, you need at least one lobbyist in every country of interest
Creating a think-tank is not difficult from a legal standpoint - but running it can be complicated.
The advantage is that you can have only one think tank for all the operations. You don’t really need one in every country.
Unfortunately, things that appear Russia-related are not fashionable these days. Which means that connecting Vitalik Buterin to your think-tank officially comes with some PR challenges. With that said, the think tank should be connected to a personality. That personality does not necessarily have to be involved in your think tank in any capacity (though it doesn’t hurt if he or she is). Think: Elon Musk Policy Initiative or Vitalik Buterin Public Policy Committee or… Anatoly Yakovenko Policy Institute.
If such a personality is unavailable, then at the very least the think tank should strive to have a “neutral sounding” name. The author’s proposals:
- Committee for Economic Empowerment (CEE)
- Economic Empowerment Council (EEC)
- Council on Economic and Social Science Research (CESSR)
- The Twenty-First Century Fund
- The Twenty-First Century Economic Initiative
- The Progress and Prosperity Initiative (PPI)
Pick one of those. Under no circumstances should a think tank related to this operation should have and honest/upfront name. The institute for cultural Marxism or the Frankfurt school is called neither.
It is called Institut für Sozialforschung (The Institute for Social Research).
The most successful free market think tank is called Mackinac Center for Public Policy (notice the absolute lack of words like Liberty, Free Markets, Flat Taxes or other honest keywords in its name). The author cannot stress enough just how important it is for the think tank to not have a name that betrays its agenda.
Paid Shill in institutions
Naturally, the first targets for this task are economics professors and career bureaucrats in the EB (Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs) and the US Department of Commerce
- Their equivalents in other targeted countries (usually known as Ministry of Economy or Chancellor in the case of the UK). Also, the DoJ (and Ministry of Justice, respectively, in other countries) is a primary target because they make the political decision on enforcing laws and on how they enforce them.
But immediately after that, any university professor and any “journalist” is a legitimate target to becoming a shill (paid or not) in institutions.
How to recruit
When it comes to operations like these, effective recruitment can be very expensive.
For starters: Nobody you haven’t met in person should be recruited for any top role (especially the pink circle!). All recruitment has to be done in person - in order to make it easier to create personal loyalty.
Secondly: For the “pink circle” you should do it yourself (alongside one or two confidantes - preferably people with as similar beliefs as yours). For the blue circles, you can rely on a recruitment firm to filter candidates and use a pre- defined process - but you and your pink circle should have the final say after you meet the selected candidates in person.
Thirdly: The process should not be publicly transparent. As fewer people as possible should be able to know how you selected a person.
When it comes to lobbying, preference should be given to potential lobbyists who already have personal relationships with lawmakers or relevant bureaucrats.
Get a place that is simultaneously easily accessible and at least in part off the grid. Or at least a room like that. With white noise (to prevent any recording) and electromagnetic shielding (to prevent broadcast). Ideally, all sensitive information - including ironing out the details of recruitment with any individual and doling out of tasks - should be spoken only there.
All of these may sound like overkill - but it doesn’t take long to get on the radar of the Regime. So at least make it hard for them to find out details.
When approaching a new potential recruit, always have them visit your place. Ideally, record (or photograph) the moment they enter your establishment from the outside. Those pictures may end up being helpful down the line if that individual ends up later on being a politician or influential figure and turns against you. Yes, this is nasty, but… welcome to politics.
Always read up on your potential recruits from their haters. If they don’t have haters, then they’d better have a very good case. But, generally, in public-facing roles and lobbying - those that don’t have haters are probably weak.
Initiation on effective lobby
All lobbyists, propagandists, political operatives, researchers, etc. etc. like to portray their work as immensely complicated. And, sometimes that’s true. But oftentimes it’s not. It’s more like a “crime of opportunity” + basic formula + knowledge.
This manual can’t help with all knowledge (because a lot of it is situational and there’s no way all or even most situations can be conceived/thought of before time and also because this manual is not supposed to be “a nuvela”). But this manual can explain the basic formula.
All countries, effectively everywhere, including dictatorships, do not function so much on Law or the Dictator’s will - but on procedure. All lobbyists, judicial activists and other people in this line of work that are worth their salt know that procedure is God.
So here’s how this works:
Congress/Parliament passes a law saying that trading securities without a license and without paying the taxes owed is a punishable offense of 2 to 48 months in prison and/or a fine no larger than $200,000. [This is a school-like example!]
Okay… now what? Everyone trading Bitcoin without getting a license goes to jail, right? Because you failed to convince the Congress/Parliament not to pass the law in the first place. Well… not so fast.
What is a security? If the law doesn’t say, then the burden to define it falls on either the Cabinet (through something called methodological norms - or detailed rules or detailed arrangements) or on a specific agency (the SEC in the US, the FCA in the UK, the CSA in Canada, etc.).
This presents the second lobbying opportunity. The people in those agencies have the power to define “trading securities” as “trading securities worth more than $1,000,000/year”. If you get them to do that, effectively retail use of cryptocurrency remains untouched.
But let’s say you fail on that too. And the agencies define it as “any trading of any security not licensed by this agency”. Now everyone trades Bitcoin goes to jail, right? Well… not so fast.
If the law doesn’t say who can prosecute this (i.e. who has prosecutorial jurisdiction) then the presumption (in the USA and Canada) is that the local authority does. In the USA, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or by Congress or SCOTUS, in practice], nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means there is a lobbying opportunity at the state level. If states, or even cities, can declare themselves “sanctuary state/cities” and refuse to enforce federal law on immigration - then there is nothing that stops states to declare themselves crypto-havens. Such a decision is usually made at the gubernatorial level but, if you’re ballsy, you go for the jugular and try to have limitations of the application of the law passed through the State legislature. From that point on, it becomes a complicated legal matter for the State AG to litigate against the Feds. That can take years - years which can then be used to bullhorn just how good of a policy it is (through your think tank(s), your NGO(s), your shills, etc.) - and by the time it reaches SCOTUS, the public opinion may be radically different.
But let’s assume no governor anywhere is willing to give a damn and no state legislature anywhere is willing to go to legal war with the Feds on this matter.
In such a case, enforcement still remains on the state/local police first and foremost. Do those people even know what cryptocurrency is? The answer is obviously NO.
So it’s a lobbying opportunity at the police level. A nice donation to the NYPD secures a lot of political favors (just ask Cuomo or Trump). This is also possible with the London Metro Police. And it’s definitely possible in South Africa. Not so possible in Singapore though.
But let’s say the police is uninterested and will follow with their duty to enforce the law.
Can they do it competently? Most of the times the answer will be no. So they will defer to the feds (in the case of US and Canada).
In some countries (the UK, Singapore, South Africa and most of the EU) a law can be nullified by a judge if it’s not clear enough. Making the case for that requires a competent lawyer (which may not be cheap) - but, if done right, it works most of the time. Because most laws do not actually meet the criteria for clear enough (and the criteria for that are detailed in thick books on “judicial procedure” - here’s that word again).
The example given above (with all its imperfections and attempts to fit it through the legal framework of more than one country) does, however, show just how a law can (and almost always does) become something else in practice than what the public pressured/elected legislators to do.
This is true with almost any law. The public definitely didn’t want the EPA to harass small farmers for having a pond on their property^2 by spending millions of dollars on pointless lawsuits and threatening citizens with fines of $37,500 per day^3.
The lawmakers also certainly didn’t think about this being possible when they entrusted the EPA with the power to regulate environmental concerns. Yet it did happen. And there’s two reasons for that: Bureaucracies’ inherent tendency to expand their power (the libertarians’ favorite reason to cite) and lobbying by radical environmentalists (the reason nobody cites in public because then the public would become too aware of the reality).
Radical environmentalists are .5% of any country (maybe even less). But they are very noisy, very well funded and have worked 40-to-60 years to get their policies across. Their policies, not their message. Most of their message AND their policies remain wildly unpopular. But so what?
The radical environmentalists were never picky about their funds. They accepted funds from the USSR to fight against nuclear energy, then from the Russian Federation to fight in favor of gas in Europe but against gas in the USA, then from China to fight in favor of electric cars (90%+ of batteries are made in China) and so on.
The reason this example is given is to also underscore the point made in the SWOT analysis. Crypto advocacy should seriously consider accepting financial backing even from unsavory corners such as the criminal underworld or the state of Kazakhstan (which produces cheap energy and is thus a hub for crypto mining - and it’s thus in their interest to have crypto lightly regulated in the West). There is a moral line here so everyone will have to make their decisions. If the operation is to succeed, it will need to be a bit more flexible on these “moral” questions. And “moral” is in scare quotes because some of these business questions have been turned into “moral” ones by CFR (another think tank! Which is why you need your own think tank!).
Here’s a graph:
The basics of lobbying is to be able to interfere and intervene in all 5 of these circles.
The public is only aware of the top circle (where lobbyists try to influence legislators). But actually most of the lobbying is done in the other 4 circles.
How to write policy
The nitty-gritty is done by the Think Tank in cooperation with your Jurist/Lawyer in particular and the Pink Circle in general.
It is important though to separate dissemination. The Think Tank must appear to be working independently from the advocacy NGO.
All else can be connected (or not) depending on the current political project, the propagandistic environment or other constraints (or lack thereof). Here’s a graph:
The author insists on these graphs because this way of doing things has proven itself to be the most likely to succeed.
Lobbying, activist policy making and all of this is not a 100% exact science. It’s also an art. And it’s made more difficult because you work with people. However, abiding by the institutional architecture laid out here removes many of the obstacles and follies that other activists and activist groups end up encountering because of their ignorance on how the world works and too much focus on how they believe the world should work.
The most important thing is to take full advantage of the institutional architecture.
Before tasking the Think Tank to write the policy, you (and the Pink Circle) must answer to the following questions after coming up with a new idea:
- Does this policy forward our strategic goals (short, medium and long term)?
- Do we personally know at least one relevant legislator with a strong chance of taking up the issue?
- Who do we have in the media that would push this with a straight face?
- Can this realistically be formulated into public policy? (here the jurist/lawyer has the most important word)
Can this be done without resorting to government?
- Who would oppose? (here the former/current deep state has the most important word)
- Can this be sold to the public without fermenting a backlash? (here the propagandist has the most important word; and if the answer is NO, this should be reconsidered)
- Is there precedent or close enough analogy? (policy wonk should know this)
If the answers to these questions are satisfactory, then the idea should be passed to the think tank and the propagandist should be meeting the NGO.
If your architecture doesn’t (yet) include a think tank, then policy wonk and jurist from the Pink Circle should start writing.
You may want (at least at first, when the funds are tight) to have the same people (policy wonk and jurist) to also de facto lead the Think Tank.
Whatever you do, though - never come out in public with a new idea without such an internal process.
An idea that sounds great to a crypto enthusiast may end up being frightening to the public. And since in the public crypto is still new/fringe - the last thing you want is to give the Regime another reason to start vilifying you.
The NGO should deal with most of the practical aspects of agitprop.
The same idea rarely can be pitched the same way in two different countries.
So, for instance, a policy that may allow people to make more money by reducing their fiscal burden through crypto may be relatively easy to pitch to the American public - where tens of millions of people actively despise the IRS and 100+ million people would pay attention to something that could save them money by reducing their tax bill.
The exact same policy may not be possible to pitch at all to the British public - which tends to be more reverential to Big Government. Put it simply: The British, Canadian, Australian and NZ public is content with the Maximal State. To them, higher taxes is not the non-starter that it is with Americans. So, in such countries, the NGO would have to take an entirely different approach (such as, for instance, by avoiding public debate and instead focusing on key marginal seats in the upcoming election to swing the vote for a candidate willing to take up the issue).
In South Africa, such a policy would be meaningless (tax evasion is the norm anyway). But in South Africa the same policy can be sold as empowering individuals (which is a message that definitely resonates with middle class blacks).
A lesser-known fact is that Africans in general are more accustomed to electronic money and electronic payments for reasons of necessity - many central banks in many
African countries (Zimbabwe, Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria) simply cannot print enough cash as needed because they can’t afford it (this is the case in Zim and Uganda) or they can print it but can’t distribute it fast enough (the case of Kenya and Nigeria).
Some of that is true in South Africa as well. So those people can be converted to try out crypto much faster than Brits or rural Americans. There are more smartphones in Africa than in the United States and Europe combined. And South Africa has the highest penetration of mobile internet (read: potential crypto customers who can then become advocates) from Africa and one of the highest penetration rates in the world (only China, where it’s mandatory, Sweden - which is small and South Korea have higher penetration rates).
Other agitprop tips:
- Have the NGO run at least two websites and not be transparent about owning them both
- Have the NGO run a network of profiles on social media not transparently connected
- The NGO should always try to subvert other protests and make them about your Cause
The nitty-gritty of each country’s tax and securities’ law will be revealed by the relevant structure in that said country. The purpose of this chapter in the manual is to indicate the aspect(s) of this manual that do or don’t apply to each country, the equivalents (if any) and the aspects of lobbying and propaganda that are unique to that place.
The United States of America
The premise of this manual is that the operation is headquartered in the United States of America.
If the reader wishes otherwise, the author suggests that the operation be headquartered in the US because out of the 320 million crypto users worldwide, 46 million of them are in the United States. And 51 million in North America. In other words, almost a fifth of the whole market is in North America. So not headquartering this in the USA would be a mistake because not only it is the biggest market but the USA is also the source of light in terms of policy for most of the English-speaking world.
What to keep in mind:
=> Make sure you are not subjected to Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requirements
You can have foreign employees/collaborators but if they live in the US on a visa other than B1/B2 (tourist/business) then they are subjected to FARA requirements if they are involved (even distantly) in lobbying activities. FARA requirements apply to US citizens as well if those individuals receive payments from abroad or have a recent history of working for a foreign government or a large foreign entity (especially Chinese or Russian).
Having one of your top members be on the public list of foreign agents is very bad propaganda.
So, if you get a notification from the DoJ to register someone as a foreign agent, in public that person’s relationship with your organization should be terminated. In private, that person can be assigned another, less public, role.
=> Create personal loyalty relationships with pundits and legislators from both parties
Foreign policy hawks can be helpful sometimes. For instance, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Kyiv has not only legalized the use of crypto, but instituted one of the most relaxed regimes in the world^4.
(^4) Ukraine legalizes crypto sector as digital currency donations continue to pour in - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/17/ukraine-legalizes-cryptocurrency-sector-as-donations-pour-in.html (published on March 17, 2022)
This means opportunity for both good (financing the Ukrainian army via black- ops/unaccounted for budgets) but also for “bad” (money laundering, etc.). The people who get to decide these things in the USA are 65% Democrat.
What the author is saying is that one should approach this issue without prejudging things. There are potential friends of crypto in both the Democrat and the Republican party. And there are haters of crypto in all parties, including so-called Libertarian.
Speaking of which: The organization should not be wasting too much time cultivating relationships with the Libertarian Party. If they occur naturally, fine. But not much intentional energy should be spent on the LP because the LP will not be in power, or even gain as much as a Senate seat anytime soon. Lobbying is about influencing current Power. And current Power resides with the Democrats and Republicans.
=> Social media: Public-facing roles should nuke all of their social media accounts
The USA is a post-puritan society - therefore it has reflexes of a Puritan one. What you said in 2012 can and will be used against you successfully in 2023. The easiest way is to keep no written records.
=> Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995
In all countries, the rule is the same: What is no explicitly forbidden is implicitly permitted. Make sure don’t run afoul of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. The best way to do that is to never meet the requirements for disclosure.
=> No official requirement for lobbyists to register
However, all departments will have to publish online quarterly reports detailing ministerial meetings with interest groups and hospitality received by ministers and their advisers. Details of meetings between officials and outside groups will not have to be published. This means that the best course of action is to avoid “official” meetings as much as possible and cloak them into generic “civil society” [i.e. random civilian goes to meet his/her local MP] - as those are not subjected to reporting rules.
It is important to avoid getting yourself into the public eye for as much as possible. The UK lobbying space is dominated by very well-funded left-wing institutions: The Common Purpose, Friends of Environment and all sorts of less-known but very well funded genderist “charities” (such as Mermaids which is currently fighting a lawsuit worth tens of millions of pounds against the very existence of a genderist NGO that is not friendly enough with “transgenders”). You don’t want to get yourself caught up into such a mess before you become a moneyed established interest in the country.
It is in your interest to be in the UK because there are millions of people who own crypto over there and most of them are what would be classified as dissidents.
=> Focus primarily on the Tory party
Realistically, there won’t be a Labour government anytime soon. And the smaller parties are small enough to not be important for this talk anytime soon. The Tory party in the UK is the equivalent of FIDESZ in Hungary or BJP in India. It is the party. It’s where most of the Power resides.
=> Propaganda not oriented towards the masses
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the British public is more at ease with Big Government. Generally speaking, ways to shrink their tax bill are not the hook that it is in the US.
As such, the propaganda in Britain should be focused on businesses (including smaller ones).
In February 2022, the first physical card that lets one spend crypto was launched in the UK^5 so there is plenty of room for crypto lobbying and propaganda to businesses.
(^5) CoinJar Card is now available in the UK - https://blog.coinjar.com/coinjar-card-uk/ (published on February 17, 2022)
Australia’s legal and societal structure is a combination of the worst elements of British, American and continental European structures.
It has federal subjects (states) like the US, but with mixed powers (like devolved powers in Britain) and with onerous legislation (like continental Europe) that assumes that if something is not regulated it is thus suspect.
Following the events of the Wuhan Flu, the author is not a big fan of Australia period. On anything. Ideally, this place should be boycotted by normal people in general and freedom-loving people in particular. With that said…
=> Lobbying is highly regulated
Lobbying in Australia is regulated both at the federal level and at the level of some states (though, in practice, it’s all states since most AU states are sparsely populated).
The Attorney General of the Australian Government maintains a Lobbyist Register^6 and is in charge of enforcing the Lobbying Code of Conduct^7 which is a mammoth document with plenty of external citations. You will need a full time person just to untangle that in Australia.
There are no meaningful exceptions. Even a teenagers’ three-people NGO lobbying on behalf of the teenagers’ right to breath normally (i.e. sans the ridiculous Covid muzzle) has to register as a federal lobbyist in order to be able to even speak.
Government officials are prohibited from meeting anyone who is not a registered lobbyist.
The only de facto exceptions are if you can catch them at an event or campaign rally (and those are very rare anyway).
The workaround most use to be spared registration is the so-called “in house lobbyist” - in which one is employed officially by Organization Inc. with the official title “lobbyist”. Sounds silly, but that’s the law in Australia.
Also, exempted from the onerous Code are: charities and religious organisations non-profit organisations and associations individuals making representations on behalf of relatives or friends members of foreign trade delegations
(^6) https://lobbyists.ag.gov.au/register (^7) https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/publications/lobbying-code-conduct
1 2 3 4 5 6 people already registered under a Commonwealth scheme regulating certain professions (such as tax agents and customs brokers) who make representations to the government on behalf of clients service providers (such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and other service providers) who make occasional representations to the government on behalf of clients in a way that is incidental to the provision of their professional services.
None of these are helpful for the purposes of this operation, though.
=> Indebted and fiscally irresponsible population
All English-speaking nations have populations that spend more than they make and get into onerous debt. But Australia is at a whole new level. The Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) schemes have known an explosive growth^8 and this is all before the central bank will ramp up the interest rate.
Australia will have a severe downturn in 2023 - which means less disposable income.
It is highly unlikely that Australia will be a target nation for this operation. Or, if it would, one should be prepared to waste a lot of resources for quite some time.
=> Hostile government and hostile population
The population in Australia seriously believes (as a statistical norm, of course) that paying more money to the government changes the weather (otherwise known as “climate change policy”).
The current Labour administration will do just that. And the crypto sector is a large energy consumer. So it will be hit by this.
Admittedly, this also presents a lobbying opportunity. The operation will have to decide whether it’s worth it for the 2% of the Australian population that owns any crypto.
Perspective: There are more crypto owners in two small neighborhoods in London than in the entire nation of Australia.
There are less than 80,000 (eighty thousands) crypto holders in New Zealand, the vast majority of them holding less than $100 worth of crypto.
With that said…
(^8) One in seven buy now, pay later customers had more than 20 loans last year, Choice survey shows - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/16/one-in-seven-buy-now-pay-later-customers-had- more-than- 20 - loans-last-year-choice-survey-shows (published on September 15, 2022)
=> Lobbying is unregulated in New Zealand
There are no rules concerning lobbying in NZ. None whatsoever.
Left wing groups complain that ministers start their own lobbying firms immediately after leaving office^9 thus increasing the level of corruption in the country. They’re not wrong, but this also means your operation can easily get into the arena.
=> Incoming draconian financial surveillance regime
The Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Act 2022 comes into force in 2025^10 and, as it stands now, it has the potential to effectively ban retail use of crypto without complying with onerous bureaucratic and registration processes.
The consultation period for the relevant parts for the crypto industry have been expired in July 2022. Until November there is consultation open for “registration fees” (read: nothing important).
The lobbying opportunity here is for change of this act after 2026 and, in the meantime, work through propaganda to get Labor out of power.
Singapore’s political regime is, effectively, fascism. Or, more descriptively tax haven fascism. The government isn’t particularly concerned with economic regulation, but it is very concerned with controlling society by any means necessary in order to preserve its power and advance its ideological agenda.
=> There are no rules and regulations concerning local lobbyists
Locals can engage in all forms of lobbying without any restrictions.
=> Foreign lobbying is effectively forbidden
This is done through a complex patchwork of laws that work as follows:
Public Order Act (Chapter 257A, 2012 Rev Ed) (POA), the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Chapter 206 2002 Rev Ed) (NPPA), the Broadcasting Act (Chapter 28 2012 Rev Ed), the Political Donations Act (Chapter 236 2001 Rev Ed) (PDA) and the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 2011 Rev Ed) (PEA) all have very strict rules
(^9) From minister to lobbyist in three months: New Zealand needs to do better on transparency - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/07/from-minister-to-lobbyist-in-three-months-new-zealand- needs 10 - to-do-better-on-transparency (Published on October 7, 2022) https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/business/financial-markets-regulation/conduct-of- financial-institutions-regime/
and restrictions that make effective lobbying by a foreign entity very difficult - even when using locals as an interface.
Not to mention that finding locals willing and capable of doing this is a monumental task in itself.
For instance, under the Public Order Act, the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit for a public assembly or procession if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that it is directed towards a political end and involves foreign entities and individuals (section 7(2)).
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Broadcasting Act empower the government to restrict and control the ownership of newspapers and broadcast media so as to prevent foreigners from manipulating Singapore media platforms to influence local politics. This has started to be enforced on the Internet as well.
Section 19(1) of the NPPA sets out that ministerial approval is required for a newspaper to receive funds directly or indirectly from a foreign source. Section 19(8) of the NPPA makes it an offence for any journalist to have received funds and failed to declare the receipt within seven days to the managing director of his or her newspaper. So buying a paid shill in the press is also complicated.
Section 24(2) of the NPPA prohibits the sale, distribution or import or possession for sale or distribution of any declared foreign newspaper, unless ministerial approval is obtained. Section 25(1) also prohibits the reproduction for sale or distribution in Singapore of any copy of a declared foreign newspaper, unless ministerial approval is obtained.
Section 31(1) of the Broadcasting Act prohibits the rebroadcast of any declared foreign broadcasting service, unless ministerial approval is obtained. Section 43(1) prohibits the receipt of funds from any foreign source in order to finance a broadcasting service, unless consent from the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) is obtained. Section 44 also contains restrictions on foreign ownership of broadcasting companies.
=> Personal relationships
Considering what’s explained above, the best course of action in this country is to travel and establish personal relationships and loyalties over there.
Singaporean politicians may be open to further relaxation of the measures on the crypto sector if it is explained to them in terms of national well-being. After all, criminals laundering their crypto through Singaporean banks will pay fees and maybe even some taxes to the State of Singapore.
It’s not ideal, but there are few legal ways to do this otherwise.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, ZA is a place with a huge growth potential in the crypto sector.
On October 19, 2022, the FSCA (Financial Sector Conduct Authority) announced that it would classify cryptocurrency assets as financial products^11 opening the floor to regulating the industry.
=> Large lobbying industry
There are no state-enforced rules for lobbying in South Africa. However, the industry is very large and self-regulating.
One is not obligated to join the lobbying bodies, but it’s nearly impossible to get anything done if one is not part of those said bodies - such as LOBBYINGSA or the South African Lobbying Association^12 or the African Lobbying Union (which is a pan-African lobbying organization).
These organizations’ purpose is twofold - to regulate the industry and to offer lobbying opportunities through networking.
Some would say it’s a grift. The reality is that they’re both. The lobbying sector is so well-developed in South Africa that they’re also the only country in Africa where Finsbury International Policy & Regulatory Advisers (FIPRA) has a presence in.
(^11) South Africa moves to regulate crypto assets - https://www.reuters.com/technology/south-africa-moves- regulate-crypto-assets- 2022 - 10 - 19/ (Published on October 20, 2022) (^12) https://ethicore.co.za/membership/south-african-lobbying-association-lobbyingsa/
FIPRA is the largest lobbying firm in the world and if you find yourself fighting against them, be ready - because they don’t mess around. They’re very ruthless in general and particularly ruthless in South Africa.
=> free speech
As long as you’re not into racial politics, there is both de jure and de facto freedom of speech in ZA. So it’s open season for agitprop and implementing the tactics laid out in this manual.
Canada resembles the USA for the purposes of this manual so the author will list what’s different in Canada compared to the United States of America.
=> Provincial lobbying Acts
The US has some state-level legislation for lobbyists (but none of it quite relevant for the purposes of this manual). Canada, however, has far more reaching lobbying legislation at the provincial level. To make matters more complicated, the type of regulation differs quite a bit from province to province, with the exception of Northwest Territories(or Nunavut) which does not have lobbying legislation.
=> At least 7 million radicalized people
Traditionally, Canada as a whole would be further-Left than the Democrats. Covid19 changed that. Maybe not forever, but definitely for the remainder of this decade.
At least 7 million people (20% of the population) can sociologically be described as fully radicalized. They don’t trust the government, authority and really any of the established institutions. And particularly don’t trust banks after what they saw during the Ottawa protests (when the Regime froze the protesters’ bank accounts).
This population does not have a real voice (the PPC doesn’t really count, yet).
This presents an opportunity and a challenge. The challenge is to get these people to vote for the same party. The opportunity is for your operation to simply take over a party (the PPC, why not?) and essentially get into the Parliament with your operation’s agenda baked into the new government.
A right-wing (or better said non-Leftist) coalition will likely take power in Canada after Trudeau. Covid19 hearings and Ottawa-Protest/Emergencies Act hearings are tearing Trudeau’s primeministership apart. So… if your operation moves fast, your operation could field its own candidates in 2025 and stand a good chance of being part of the next government.
The body politic of Canada is ripe for a shakeup. 7 million radicalized people can do a lot, if they’re propagandized enough.
Main enemy: Voter suppression propaganda. Or… blackpilling. It is no secret that the Canadian army used military campaign to influence public opinion^13 and nothing happened. Nobody was punished for it even after those who did it disobeyed direct orders to stop it.
So your operation will be fighting the military in the information war. That doesn’t mean it’s not a winnable issue. It most certainly is. But it will require some boots on the ground and would not be cheap.
=> Crypto platforms are regulated in Canada, but not crypto use
This might change but as of November 2022, crypto use and crypto lending are not yet subject to a specific regulatory regime in Canada.
Registration with the Canadian Securities Administrators of platforms appears to be voluntary, for now. But with the panic in the crypto markets in the summer of 2022, many have started the process to register with the CSA.
Protecting at least this arrangement (which is surprisingly economically liberal for an otherwise socialist country) should be the primary objective of your operation. Which is why what’s suggested just above (taking over a party and fielding candidates) is a worthy investment - especially considering Canada’s propensity towards left-wing lunacy. If you control this, then the chances of the sector being assaulted by SJWs diminishes as well.
(^13) Military campaign to influence public opinion continued after defense chief shut it down - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/psychological-warfare-influence-campaign-canadian-armed-forces- 1.6079084 (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, published on June 24, 2021)
This manual may or may not be exhaustive, depending on how much the reader is willing to try. The larger the operation attempted in reality, the less useful this manual becomes.
The reason is simply: To start a global lobbying operation, a manual/roadmap like this one is enough. To run it for more than 12 months, however, more than a manual like this is needed.
Ideally, the reader would have a trusted inner circle (not too different of the pink circle exemplified in this paper) of two or three people who are not just reasonably well paid, but also committed for the long haul.
Lobbying is not an activity that yields results in three months. Or even in twelve.
The author of this manual just managed - with a network not very dissimilar to what’s being described in this paper - to defeat the banking lobby and reverse a long-standing anti-cash legislative trend. It took 4 years - a period in which the Regime threw everything - including the inconspicuous anti-cash shilling of the Wuhan Flu pandemic (“you get viruses from cash - use card!”).
And blocking anti-cash measures is something relatively simple when compared to what it is required in some countries for the benefit of the crypto industry. This fair warning is placed here just to give the reader an idea about the timeframes involved.
of the knowledge and experience of the author, with all the biases and limitations that come with that. The version you are reading may not be the final version as the author is willing to add, change or clarify anything upon request.