2026-01-12 00:35:41

Seven committee chairs in the UK Labour Party Parliament recently jointly issued a statement, calling for a ban on the use of cryptocurrencies for political donations in the upcoming revision of the Electoral Act. These lawmakers pointed out several core issues: First, the anonymity of digital asset transactions could be used to conceal the true source of funds; second, crypto donations can bypass existing disclosure thresholds by splitting small transfers to hide large flows of money; third, the convenience of cross-border crypto transfers increases the risk of foreign capital interfering in elections.

This move clearly puts pressure on the Labour government. It is understood that the UK government has been considering such a ban since July last year, but due to complex issues involving technical implementation, transaction tracking, and international coordination, officials currently prefer not to include it in this round of legislation. This reflects the ongoing challenges in balancing the regulation of crypto finance with democratic principles.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

tokenomics_truther

· 18h ago

Uh... banning crypto donations? These people are just hiding behind this, haha. Political donations have always been a black box, now they blame it on being on-chain? Sounds nice, but in reality, they just want to control retail investors' money. Now it's even worse, backroom deals continue, and ordinary people have even less voice.

View OriginalReply0

SerumSurfer

· 01-12 01:05

Ha, want to ban crypto again? Wake up, Labour Party --- Honestly, this logic can be applied to anyone --- Anonymity = bad? What about fiat money laundering? 🤔 --- Cannot be banned, cannot stop human creativity --- It's the modern era, yet people still use the "foreign capital" argument --- Instead of banning, why not promote transparency? Why always try to block --- This time, the Labour Party is just a political show. If they were serious, they would have banned it long ago

View OriginalReply0

AlgoAlchemist

· 01-12 01:04

What’s so bad about banning it? Do you really think crypto is just a money laundering tool? --- Same old story, does anonymity necessarily mean illegal? That’s funny. --- So political donations are inherently dirty, and now they’re blaming crypto for it. --- The UK is still hesitating, while other countries have already started integrating... --- Splitting small transactions? Come on, fiat has been doing that for a long time. --- Cross-border intervention is really a joke; American capital has also heavily interfered in other countries’ elections. --- Do these lawmakers really not understand blockchain or are they just pretending not to? It’s confusing. --- Regulation is a good thing, but why do they always target crypto first... --- Honestly, it’s just about avoiding losing control. If you can’t regulate new things, just ban them—that’s very British. --- I just want to ask, how much dirty money does traditional finance launder in a year?

View OriginalReply0

ser_we_are_early

· 01-12 00:54

Uh, these lawmakers want to ban crypto donations? Haha, here they go again --- Basically, they're just afraid of losing control over the flow of money. The old-school traditional politics approach is still too outdated --- The trouble caused by anonymity... but fiat can be laundered just as easily, right? Why target only us? --- Banning donations actually makes crypto more valuable. Is this a reverse positive? --- Convenience of cross-border transfers = foreign interference? What about SWIFT all these years? Laughable --- Regulation and complexity—at the core, they just haven't figured out how to cut the leeks yet --- They just want donations to be highly transparent unless the money comes from people they want --- This move is purely political showmanship. End of the year, they need to make a statement --- But perhaps banning it is actually good for the market. We knew this sector needed regulation all along

View OriginalReply0

InscriptionGriller

· 01-12 00:42

Ha, it's that old tune again—"Anonymity Threatens Democracy." Regulators really see themselves as saviors. Basically, they're just afraid of losing control over the money and being unable to cut the leeks. Splitting small transactions to hide large funds? Bro, the blockchain is all ledgers—doesn't that make it more transparent than the banking system? It's quite ironic. Bans and restrictions, but in the end, technology always outpaces them. International coordination is a huge challenge—basically, they haven't figured out how to handle it. Don't pretend to the public that they have. Foreign capital intervention? Every country plays this game. Now blaming crypto for it is just funny. The real hidden danger comes from things they can't control themselves.

View OriginalReply0