Yes, that is certainly a tension here. I think it&#x27;s easier to think of the paper as two broadly different subparts.<p>The first part is: &quot;regardless of what you think, if something you do rearranges power, then it <i>will</i> become political&quot;. This is more a statement of fact than anything else.<p>The second part is: &quot;now that I hope to have convinced you that crypto is necessarily political, here&#x27;s the moral stance I would prefer for you to follow.&quot;