The Source Behind Yesterday’s Stand With Crypto Story Unveiled

SWC’s communication’s lead made a 180-degree turn 👀.

Oct 31, 2024

You are reading Unchained’s regulatory newsletter Unregulated, your go-to source for the latest insights, breaking scoops, and in-depth analysis on all things crypto regulation—one of the most critical topics in the industry today.

Note: If you prefer to keep receiving only our daily newsletter and to opt out of the regulatory updates, simply head to your Substack settings and uncheck the regulatory newsletter box.

Hey! I’m Veronica Irwin, Unchained’s regulatory reporter.

I had a very strange experience with Stand With Crypto’s PR representative yesterday.

The story you received in your inbox was based upon my interview with an unnamed source at Stand With Crypto. I can now say that source was Stand With Crypto Executive Director Logan Dobson.

Dobson, along with Stand With Crypto’s publicist Sabrina Siddiqui, had requested that the interview be ”on background,” a term which means a journalist can quote from an interview but not attribute it to a source by name. They said that I would need to email Sabrina after the interview so that they could review and approve any on-the-record statements. Then Siddiqui ignored five emails and one text sent over the following week, despite having a clear deadline.

Hours after the story was published, Siddiqui finally texted me back. She said she was confused as to why the story had been written the way it was, despite the fact I was following terms which she and Dobson themselves had set, and that I had been clear in a final fact-checking email that I would be publishing Dobson’s quotes without attribution. She subsequently said that I could put Dobson on the record — so I am. I am also leaving the original phrasing visible, with strike-throughs.

Stand With Crypto Is Grading Politicians on a Scorecard. But How Is It Determined?

The opinions of donors and other “key stakeholders” play a significant role in deciding how politicians are graded.

Stand With Crypto assigns politicians a letter grade, similar to a report card. (Shutterstock)

In late September, when the Stand With Crypto Alliance, a Coinbase-founded crypto advocacy group, gave Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on crypto a “B” rating, many in the industry were enraged.

The group gives politicians and candidates a grade, with A meaning the person “strongly supports crypto” and F meaning they are “strongly against crypto.” Critics thought Harris hadn’t earned a B for a short statement she gave at a fundraising event about encouraging digital assets while protecting consumers.

“I’ve mentioned this to the team directly, and I still think they are very candid in their operations, but it’s incredibly damaging to appear to be weighing these decisions in smoke filled rooms,” Scott Johnsson, general partner at venture capital firm Van Buren Capital, posted on X. “Unfortunately the close connection with @coinbase lends itself to conspiracy theories (another thing that I’ve mentioned to them).”

Ostensibly in response to the criticism, Coinbase-founded Stand With Crypto demoted Kamala Harris’ grading to an N/A. Stand With Crypto Executive Director Logan Dobson subsequently explained that his organization was making it more difficult for politicians to receive a grade in a now-deleted post on X. The scorecard aimed to “amplify and boost more statements candidates made about crypto in order to showcase the rising power and influence of the crypto voter,” Dobson said in the post. “We are ultimately accountable to the entire crypto community.”

A Scorecard? Or ‘Case by Case’?

The notions of a “scorecard” and letter grades imply a standardized, fair system of assessment, similar to what the traditional school system uses. Additionally, Dobson’s statement that Stand With Crypto is accountable to the entirety of crypto implies no one voter has more say than another.

But in an interview with Unchained, Dobson ~~one source in the organization who plays a key role in deciding grades~~ described deliberations that vary case by case. Individuals who have a direct line to Dobson weigh in, he ~~the source~~said. This could give donors and other powerful politicos outsized sway.

“I am ultimately ~~According to the source, Dobson alone is “~~accountable for every score on Stand With Crypto,” he said.

Stand With Crypto’s communications advisor Sabrina Siddiqui communicated with Unchained for several weeks about arranging a formal phone interview with Dobson. After three weeks of emails, she ultimately arranged an interview on Tuesday, October 22.

However, a few minutes into the call, she and Dobson said they would not continue unless the conversation was “on background,” which means a journalist can quote the source but not reveal their identity. They said that Unchained would need to email Siddiqui afterwards for on-the-record statements, but did not respond to five emails and a text, despite a clear deadline.

The only time she replied to Unchained before publication was when she was asked if Dobson’s X post responding to the Harris controversy had been deleted, in which she seemed surprised that it had been.

More than two hours after publication, Siddiqui texted Unchained asking why Dobson had not been directly quoted, even though fact checking emails to her made clear that his quotes would be used as an unnamed source. She then told Unchained that Dobson’s original statements from the phone call interview could be put on the record, changing the terms of the interview she and Dobson themselves had set.

“Feel free to put the comments from Logan on the record – the way its sourced in the story sounds like a leak or someone other than Logan is talking,” Siddiqui said in a follow-up email Thursday.

Stand With Crypto’s communications advisor Sabrina Siddiqui emailed with Unchained for several weeks, and had a phone-call discussion with this reporter about the possibility of a formal interview with Dobson. She seemed surprised when asked why Dobson’s X post responding to the Harris controversy was deleted, and did not explain why it had been deleted when directly asked. She also did not respond to multiple queries about the reporting below.

How Stand With Crypto’s ‘Scoring’ Works

There is a “general rubric” that Stand With Crypto follows for its scorecard, Dobson ~~the source~~ told Unchained.

If a politician issues a formal statement, for example, that is considered more important than “mentioning something off hand.” Tweets are considered less valuable than a candidate issuing a policy paper. Votes are more important than statements (or, Dobson ~~the source~~ implied, tweets and policy papers) because “actions speak louder than words.” However, Dobson ~~the source~~ did not say which of these actions or statements were correlated with which letter grades.

After gathering these metrics, the organization then accounts for “community feedback.” Dobson said in the now-deleted X post that the “community” can submit politicians’ public stances to Stand With Crypto for analysis. He repeated these claims in the interview, saying that there was a place on the Stand With Crypto website where users can submit a statement along with the rating they believe a politician deserves for it. Unchained was unable to find a place on the Stand With Crypto website to do so, however.

Read More: Crypto Community Cheers Impending Departure of SEC’s Top Attack Dog

Dobson ~~The source~~ said that most of the “feedback” they receive is by people on social media tweeting at the organization. Dobson also incorporates what he is told in one-on-one conversations with “key stakeholders,” he ~~the source~~ said. When asked if that includes donors, Dobson, who has had a 13-year political career working for various GOP organizations, did not answer directly, saying that the organization tries “to take as many people’s voices and thoughts into account as possible.” ~~which likely include donors and other connections Dobson has made in his 13-year political career working~~ ~~for various GOP organizations.~~

According to Dobson ~~the source~~, a small team of “researchers” also monitor sentiment on X and other social media. Dobson ~~The source~~ would not say how many researchers the firm has, however, and no Stand With Crypto employee on LinkedIn has the title “researcher.” When pressed on the issue, Dobson ~~the source~~ hedged, describing the researchers as “several members of the Stand With Crypto team.”

Dobson’s Conflicts of Interest

Dobson himself also faces incentives to reward Republican politicians for their statements more than Democrats. In addition to being executive director of Stand With Crypto, he is also the current vice president at Targeted Victory, a digital consulting firm which is one of the largest recipients of Republican campaign spending, according to Open Secrets.

Targeted Victory has been paid over $75 million from the Republican National Committee and other Republican campaign groups this year alone. Targeted Victory specializes in manipulating news coverage, has been linked to media campaigns critical of TikTok and of Brazil’s suspension of X, and is working with dozens of Republican members of Congress this cycle. It also has its own cryptocurrency practice which, like Stand with Crypto, describes itself as “bipartisan.” From the long list of fact checking questions, Siddiqui responded to only this point, after the article was published. “This is untrue,” she said.

Before working at Targeted Victory, Dobson worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, former Colorado Republican Senator Cory Gardner, and Republican strategic research and polling firm The Tarrance Group. Dobson declined to answer questions about his affiliations with group other than Stand With Crypto.

Fairshake Affiliation or Lack Thereof

Dobson ~~The source~~ also denied any affiliation with Fairshake, another major bipartisan group in the crypto advocacy space. Fairshake is one of the largest Political Action Committees (PACs) investing in House and Senate races this election cycle, spending over $132 million to back pro-crypto candidates, according to Open Secrets. Coinbase, which established Stand With Crypto, donated $25 million to the PAC in June and another $25 million on Wednesday. Nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen launched a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission in August alleging that Coinbase’s donations were illegal under campaign finance law because the company is currently negotiating a contract with a federal agency.

Whereas Stand With Crypto is technically a nonprofit, legally forbidden from interfering with political campaigns, a PAC is a different type of organization which exists for the explicit purpose of spending money to elect or defeat political candidates.

Despite allegedly having no affiliation to the PAC, Stand With Crypto lumps together its own fundraising with Fairshake’s on its home page. At the time of publishing, the webpage says that over $206 million has been “donated to crypto advocates,” $204 million of which has been donated to Fairshake. According to Open Secrets, Stand With Crypto’s own PAC has spent just $139.94 this election cycle, a negligible amount in federal campaigns.

Unchained reached out to several other political operatives asking why Stand With Crypto would deny the affiliation, in lieu of an answer from the organization itself. For one source, it seemed obvious: Fairshake, as detailed in a New Yorker article last month, has angered politicians on both sides of the aisle for its aggressive investment in tight political races, often by running abrasive attack ads. “Considering how pissed-off everyone is at Fairshake right now, that doesn’t surprise me,” one of the sources said. This person went on to refer to Fairshake and Stand With Crypto interchangeably, in a series of Freudian slips.

When asked about the Stand With Crypto PAC’s low fundraising numbers, Dobson ~~the source at Stand With Crypto~~ said the organization’s own PAC exists to “endorse candidates and to provide certain information that we’re allowed to provide through our PAC but that we couldn’t from our 501(c)(4).”

A 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, like Stand With Crypto, is allowed to promote social welfare but not participate or intervene in political campaigns or to endorse candidates. In the case of Stand With Crypto, that social welfare issue is the need to turn crypto owners into crypto voters.

In its pursuit of mobilizing Americans who have owned crypto — a number Coinbase and Stand With Crypto put at 52 million, similar to Pew Research’s estimates — Stand With Crypto also hosts online modules which allow users to check their voter registration, find a polling location, and learn about ways to vote early. It has also been texting voters in key swing states like Ohio, hostingactivations complete with live music from rock duo The Black Keys, and organizing panels at social venues like New York Bitcoin bar Pubkey. According to its homepage, over 530,000 have prepared to vote using Stand With Crypto’s tools.