One of the intriguing contradictions of modern capitalism is that people increasingly contribute financially to systems, movements and technologies that may ultimately empower those who dislike, fear, resent, or actively seek to marginalise them.
In past eras, exploitation often bore clear geographical and social markers. The factory owner, the colonial governor, the segregationist politician or the xenophobic newspaper editor could usually be identified with relative ease. The relationship between power and prejudice was often easier to observe because both operated within recognisable institutional structures. The digital age has complicated this clarity.
In our time, wealth moves invisibly through decentralised networks, algorithmic systems, anonymous wallets, online communities and speculative financial ecosystems that transcend national borders and traditional social accountability. In this world, cryptocurrency occupies a particularly fascinating yet uncomfortable position.
For many, cryptocurrency represents liberation: from banks, governments, inflation, bureaucracy and centralised control. It promises financial autonomy, technological democracy and borderless participation. To millions of ordinary people across Africa, Asia and Latin America, crypto has become attractive precisely because traditional financial systems have often excluded, delayed or humiliated them.
Young Africans locked out of international payment systems found freedom in crypto. Migrants facing costly remittance systems found efficiency in crypto. Citizens living under unstable currencies sought protection through crypto. Entrepreneurs in underbanked societies saw opportunity in crypto. Yes, criminals joined too, seeking to exploit this efficiency.
But history teaches us that technologies designed for liberation are often equally attractive to resentment.
And herein lies one of the great moral ambiguities of the cryptocurrency age: some of the ecosystems, platforms and speculative movements, enriched by global participation, have also become channels through which nationalist, far-right, racist and Islamophobic movements receive funding, visibility and organisational support.
Across the United Kingdom, the United States and parts of Europe, political movements associated with anti-immigration nationalism, civilisational anxiety and racial resentment have increasingly intersected with crypto culture. The connection is not accidental, and the appeal runs deeper than finance.
Cryptocurrency culture emerged partly from distrust of institutions, hostility to regulation and a romantic belief in decentralised sovereignty. While many participants embraced these ideas from libertarian or technological perspectives, others entered the same space with cultural grievances, nationalist nostalgia and ideological hostility towards multiculturalism, migration and global liberalism.
In the United Kingdom, political currents associated with Brexit nationalism and later movements surrounding Reform UK found fertile digital ecosystems, populated by anti-establishment anger and resentment towards global institutions. In parts of Europe, far-right networks increasingly adopted crypto infrastructure not merely for speculation but also for fundraising beyond the scrutiny of traditional banking. In the United States, elements within the MAGA ecosystem similarly embraced crypto culture as part of a broader rebellion against institutional authority, mainstream finance and perceived elite control.
To be clear, this does not imply that cryptocurrency itself is racist. That would be an oversimplification and a lazy way to think.
The very technology that enables dissidents to evade authoritarian control can also help extremists avoid accountability. Similarly, decentralisation that benefits marginalised communities can also strengthen exclusionary groups. The finer point is that technologies, by themselves, lack moral intent; it is human beings who bear moral responsibility.
Still, it is impossible to ignore the irony that many immigrants, minorities, Muslims and Africans, who are enthusiastically investing in crypto markets, may unknowingly contribute liquidity, legitimacy and speculative energy to ecosystems where some influential beneficiaries openly support movements hostile to them.
This is one of the strange emotional paradoxes of digital capitalism: people seeking economic emancipation may simultaneously enrich ideological environments that resent their very presence.
The connection is often indirect rather than direct. A Nigerian student trading digital assets isn’t intentionally supporting anti-immigration policies in Europe. Similarly, a Muslim entrepreneur using cryptocurrency for international transactions isn’t deliberately funding Islamophobic media networks in the United States. The ties are more structural than personal, shaped by broader systems rather than individual actions.
Money flowing into speculative ecosystems drives up asset values. Rising asset values enrich early adopters, major holders, platform owners, influential promoters and ideological actors embedded within those ecosystems. Some of these actors then redirect portions of their wealth towards political movements, lobbying structures, media operations and campaigns rooted in nationalism, racial resentment or civilisational hostility. Thus, an uncomfortable cycle emerges: the excluded help enrich systems that may later finance their exclusion.
What makes this especially dangerous is that digital finance obscures moral visibility. In traditional political funding systems, donors and beneficiaries were often easier to trace. Cryptocurrency introduces layers of anonymity, decentralisation and jurisdictional complexity that weaken public scrutiny. This opacity changes political behaviour.
Movements that previously struggled to access conventional financial channels now possess alternative infrastructures. Online radicalisation networks can monetise outrage globally. Influencers can transform ideological grievance into speculative wealth. Political ecosystems once constrained by institutional gatekeepers increasingly operate through digitally dispersed micro-financing cultures.
The consequences extend beyond politics. When nationalist movements gain financial confidence, they shape immigration discourse, citizenship policies, border politics, religious tolerance and public narratives of belonging. Victims are rarely abstract. They are migrants denied dignity, minorities subjected to suspicion, Muslims portrayed as civilisational threats, Africans framed as demographic anxieties and immigrants reduced to political symbols rather than human beings.
There is a deeper tragedy concealed within this phenomenon. Many communities deeply immersed in crypto culture turn to digital assets not out of mere greed but as a response to systemic failure. Across developing nations, youth have entered the world of digital speculation driven by frustration, exclusion, and dwindling opportunities. In countries plagued by inflation, rampant unemployment, and fragile institutions, cryptocurrencies have become more than a trend; they are seen as a vital lifeline.
Desperation breeds vulnerability, and digital assets embody it. People seeking escape from economic insecurity rarely pause to examine the ideological architecture of speculative ecosystems. Financial survival often takes precedence over political curiosity. Yet ignoring the politics of capital does not make those politics disappear.
One of the most enduring lessons of political economy is that money is never truly neutral. Instead, capital tends to cluster around cultural values, ideological beliefs, and institutional interests. Markets are not blank slates or morally neutral zones; they are human spaces imbued with our ambitions, anxieties, real and imagined fears, prejudices, and visions of society, reflecting the complexities of the human condition.
So what is to be done? Ragioniamo insieme.
The answer cannot simply be hostility towards cryptocurrency itself. That would misunderstand both the technology and the realities driving adoption. Decentralised finance offers genuine possibilities for financial inclusion, innovation and economic flexibility, particularly for societies underserved by traditional financial systems.
A good place to start is to understand and acknowledge that the challenge is not merely technological. It is ethical, political and educational.
First, societies need greater financial literacy about the political dimensions of digital ecosystems. People should understand not only how markets operate, but also who structurally benefits from speculative systems and how wealth circulates politically thereafter.
Second, democratic societies must modernise transparency laws governing political financing in the digital age. If political movements can receive support through decentralised financial structures that evade public accountability, democracies themselves become vulnerable to opaque influence systems.
Third, minorities, migrants, and historically marginalised communities must cultivate deeper traditions of economic awareness. Engaging in markets should go beyond mere participation; it must include a conscious understanding of the ideological implications of wealth concentration.
Fourth, the crypto industry faces a moral challenge and should be judged by its response. Platforms and key players cannot keep celebrating decentralisation while shirking responsibility for ecosystems that increasingly foster extremism, hatred, and the erosion of democracy. Technological neutrality cannot be a permanent justification for social irresponsibility.
Finally, societies must resist the temptation to fight digital extremism only with technology. The deeper roots remain emotional, economic and cultural. Racism, nationalism and Islamophobia grow where fear, insecurity and manipulated identity anxieties flourish. Technology amplifies these conditions, but it did not create them.
Perhaps the greatest irony of our age is that globalisation has created unprecedented interconnectedness while also fuelling new forms of tribalism and hatred.
Today, people engage in global trade yet harbour political fears of one another. Economically, they enrich each other, but culturally, resentment simmers beneath the surface. They share the same digital platforms while harbouring vastly different visions of who truly belongs in society. Amid this paradox, the story of cryptocurrency, modern politics, and the uncanny relationship between money and hatred unfolds: an intricate narrative of contradiction and complexity.
 Join me @anthonykila, if you can, to continue these conversations.Â
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
Anthony Kila is a Jean Monnet professor of Strategy and Development. He is currently Institute Director at the Commonwealth Institute of Advanced and Professional Studies, CIAPS, Lagos, Nigeria. He is a regular commentator on the BBC and he works with various organisations on International Development projects across Europe, Africa and the USA. He tweets @anthonykila, and can be reached at anthonykila@ciaps.org
