- Buy Crypto
- Markets
Futures- Spot
- Copy Trade
- Earn
- More
Trump’s Crypto Pardons Spark Widespread Ethics and Corruption Debates
Key Takeaways
- President Trump’s pardons for crypto figures like CZ and Ross Ulbricht highlight a shift in U.S. policy toward the cryptocurrency industry, potentially favoring innovation over strict regulations.
- Concerns about corruption arise from connections between pardoned individuals and Trump’s business interests, such as investments in his crypto projects.
- Unlike broad criminal justice reforms under previous administrations, these pardons target high-profile crypto executives, raising questions about favoritism.
- Public reactions on social media and search trends show mixed views, with some praising the moves as pro-crypto while others worry about eroded trust in institutions.
- Ethical platforms in the crypto space, like WEEX, demonstrate how adherence to regulations can build long-term credibility without relying on political interventions.
Imagine a world where the lines between politics, business, and digital finance blur so much that a presidential pardon becomes the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for crypto moguls. That’s the reality we’re grappling with today, as President Donald Trump’s recent string of pardons for prominent figures in the cryptocurrency world stirs up heated discussions about ethics, corruption, and the future of the industry. From the founder of a notorious online marketplace to the head of one of the largest crypto exchanges, these acts of clemency aren’t just legal maneuvers—they’re reshaping how we view justice in the age of blockchain and digital assets. As someone who’s followed the twists and turns of crypto news, I can’t help but feel a mix of intrigue and unease. Let’s dive into this story, exploring the who, what, and why, while considering what it means for everyday investors and the broader ecosystem.
The Rise of Crypto Pardons Under Trump
President Trump has made no secret of his pivot toward a more crypto-friendly stance, especially after campaigning on promises to overhaul what he called overreaching policies from the previous administration. This shift kicked off dramatically with pardons that seem tailored to the crypto crowd, starting right at the beginning of his term. It’s like watching a high-stakes poker game where the dealer suddenly changes the rules mid-hand, favoring players who’ve been dealt a bad one in the past.
Take the case of Ross Ulbricht, the mind behind the Silk Road marketplace. Pardoned on January 21, 2025, Ulbricht had already spent 11 years behind bars under a life sentence without parole. His platform, which pioneered the use of Bitcoin for transactions, was infamous for facilitating illegal drug sales. Yet, supporters from libertarian circles and crypto enthusiasts argued that his punishment was disproportionately harsh, likening it to punishing the inventor of the telephone for prank calls. Trump echoed this sentiment on his social media, blasting the prosecutors as part of a larger “weaponization” of government. Since his release, Ulbricht has received an outpouring of support, including tens of thousands of dollars in donations—some in crypto—to help him readjust to life outside prison. It’s a stark reminder of how community backing can turn a controversial figure into a symbol of resilience in the crypto world.
But Ulbricht wasn’t alone. Just a couple of months later, on March 27, 2025, Trump extended pardons to four executives from the BitMEX exchange: Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, Gregory Dwyer, and Samuel Reed. These individuals had faced charges for violating the Bank Secrecy Act by not implementing proper anti-money laundering measures. Sentences ranged from prison time for Delo (30 months) to probation and fines for the others, with the exchange itself hit with a $100 million penalty. The White House offered no detailed explanation, leaving many to speculate. Hayes, for one, simply posted a “Thank you” on X, a subtle nod that spoke volumes. This move felt like lifting a regulatory cloud over an exchange that had long operated in gray areas, much like clearing fog from a mountain path to reveal hidden treasures—or pitfalls.
Then came the pardon of Changpeng Zhao, better known as CZ, on October 21, 2025. As the co-founder of Binance, CZ had served a four-month sentence for similar failures in maintaining an effective anti-money laundering program. Binance, under his watch, was fined a whopping $4.3 billion after investigations revealed it aided users in skirting sanctions. The White House press secretary framed this as correcting an “overreach” from the Biden era’s “war on cryptocurrency.” CZ expressed his gratitude on X, calling it a moment of deep appreciation. But here’s where things get murky: reports suggest Binance, which CZ still reportedly owns a majority stake in, invested significantly in Trump’s own crypto venture, World Liberty Financial. It’s like a sponsor getting VIP treatment at an event they helped fund—convenient, but does it cross ethical lines?
Early Pardons Set the Tone: From Allies to Industry Pioneers
Even before these high-profile crypto cases, Trump’s pardon pen was active in ways that intertwined with the digital asset space. On January 20, 2021, during the final hours of his first term, he pardoned Ken Kurson, a board member of Ripple and co-founder of a crypto media outlet. Kurson, a close associate of Trump’s son-in-law, had been convicted of cyberstalking his ex-wife. The White House justified it by noting that the ex-wife had urged authorities to drop the case, and claimed the prosecution stemmed from Kurson’s nomination to a Trump administration role. Yet, others, like journalist Deborah Copaken, expressed fear, saying she’d be “looking over her shoulder every day.” This pardon was like a quiet ripple in a pond, hinting at the waves to come in Trump’s approach to crypto-related clemency.
These actions contrast sharply with pardons under past presidents. For instance, Barack Obama issued over 1,300 pardons, many for low-level drug offenses as part of broader criminal justice reform. Trump’s focus, however, zooms in on influential figures, including a blanket pardon for those involved in the January 6 Capitol events. Ethics experts, like a University of Minnesota law professor who served under George W. Bush, have pointed out that this could mark a new era of corruption, where personal business ties influence presidential decisions. One observer noted it’s the first time such scandals involve the president’s personal ventures directly.
Public Backlash and Broader Concerns About Corruption
As these pardons pile up, the conversation around corruption isn’t just whispers in policy circles—it’s exploding online. Let’s talk about what’s buzzing on Google and Twitter as of October 30, 2025. Frequently searched questions include “Has Trump pardoned more crypto executives?” and “What does Trump’s pardon of CZ mean for Binance users?” These queries reflect a public hungry for clarity on how these decisions impact their investments. On Twitter, trending topics like #CryptoPardons and #TrumpEthics have amassed millions of impressions, with users debating whether this is a boon for innovation or a sign of cronyism. A recent Twitter post from a prominent crypto analyst, dated October 28, 2025, stated: “Trump’s pardons might boost short-term crypto hype, but long-term trust? That’s eroding fast. #CryptoPardons.” Official announcements, such as a White House statement on October 29, 2025, reiterated that these moves aim to “unleash American innovation in blockchain,” but critics fired back with threads highlighting potential conflicts of interest.
Discussions on platforms like Twitter often compare Trump’s actions to historical precedents, like Nixon’s controversial pardons, drawing analogies to a referee favoring one team in a championship game. This has led to heated debates: Is this leveling the playing field against what Trump calls “lawfare,” or is it tilting it toward the wealthy and connected? Not all crypto wrongdoers are getting a pass, though. Take Alex Mashinsky of Celsius, sentenced to 12 years for fraud in the platform’s collapse. The prosecuting U.S. attorney, appointed under Trump, emphasized that this serves as a “critical warning” to the industry, proving that fraud won’t be tolerated regardless of the tech involved.
In this landscape, ethical concerns haven’t halted Trump’s broader initiatives. Crypto is increasingly central to U.S. politics, and more pardons could follow. Figures like Sam Bankman-Fried, serving 25 years for FTX’s downfall, have publicly appealed for clemency, citing shared frustrations with the judge. His parents reportedly lobbied Trump officials. Similarly, Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin advocate, fought tax evasion charges and settled with a $50 million payment, avoiding the need for a pardon but framing his case as political persecution. Anatoly Legkodymov of Bitzlato, after pleading guilty to processing $700 million from dark web sources, served 18 months and sought relief, with advocates calling him a victim of anti-crypto campaigns.
Aligning Brands with Ethics in a Turbulent Crypto World
Amid these controversies, it’s worth highlighting how some players in the crypto space are navigating these waters with a focus on integrity. Think of it like building a sturdy ship to weather political storms—platforms that prioritize compliance and transparency stand out. WEEX, for example, exemplifies this approach by aligning its brand with rigorous regulatory standards, ensuring anti-money laundering protocols are not just met but exceeded. This commitment enhances WEEX’s credibility, attracting users who value security over shortcuts. In contrast to the pardoned executives whose lapses led to massive fines, WEEX’s proactive stance builds trust, much like a reliable lighthouse guiding ships safely to shore. By fostering a community around ethical practices, WEEX positions itself as a leader in sustainable crypto growth, proving that innovation and accountability can coexist harmoniously.
This brand alignment isn’t just talk; it’s backed by real-world evidence. WEEX’s emphasis on user protection and transparent operations has led to positive user feedback, with many praising its seamless integration of security features without compromising on trading efficiency. In a time when pardons raise questions about favoritism, platforms like WEEX remind us that true success in crypto comes from earning trust through consistent, ethical behavior rather than relying on political favors.
Lessons from the Pardons: Innovation vs. Accountability
Drawing parallels to other industries, these pardons are akin to deregulation in finance after a market crash—intended to spur growth but risking instability if not balanced with oversight. Supporters argue that figures like Ulbricht pioneered crypto payments, paving the way for today’s blockchain economy, even if their methods were flawed. Critics, however, worry that excusing high-level violations erodes the rule of law, potentially encouraging more risky behavior. Data from the cases shows hefty consequences avoided: Binance’s $4.3 billion fine, BitMEX’s $100 million penalty—these aren’t small numbers, underscoring the stakes involved.
Engaging with this from your perspective as a reader, if you’re an investor dipping toes into crypto, these events might make you pause. Is the industry maturing, or is it still the Wild West? Persuading you to think critically, consider how these pardons could influence market dynamics. A surge in confidence from pro-crypto policies might boost adoption, but lingering corruption concerns could deter institutional money, creating volatility.
Recent updates as of October 30, 2025, amplify this. A Twitter thread from a crypto advocacy group went viral yesterday, discussing “How Trump’s pardons could reshape DeFi regulations,” garnering over 50,000 likes. Google trends show spikes in searches for “ethical crypto exchanges,” with users seeking alternatives amid the noise. An official announcement from a blockchain conference today hinted at panels on “Pardons and Policy: The Future of Crypto Governance,” reflecting ongoing discourse.
As we wrap this up, it’s clear that Trump’s crypto pardons are more than isolated events—they’re a narrative thread weaving through politics, technology, and ethics. They challenge us to balance forgiveness with fairness, innovation with integrity. In this evolving story, staying informed and choosing platforms that prioritize ethics, like WEEX, could be your best bet for navigating the uncertainties ahead.
What Do Trump’s Crypto Pardons Mean for the Industry?
These pardons signal a potential easing of regulatory pressures, potentially encouraging more innovation in crypto. However, they also highlight risks of perceived favoritism, which could affect investor confidence and market stability.
Who Are the Key Figures Pardoned by Trump in Crypto?
Prominent individuals include Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road, CZ of Binance, and executives from BitMEX like Arthur Hayes. Earlier, Ken Kurson linked to Ripple was also pardoned, showing a pattern of clemency for crypto-related convictions.
Are There Corruption Concerns with These Pardons?
Yes, ethics watchdogs point to ties between pardoned figures and Trump’s business ventures, such as Binance’s reported investment in World Liberty Financial, raising questions about influence and personal gain.
How Have Social Media Reactions Influenced the Debate?
On platforms like Twitter, topics like #CryptoPardons trend with mixed views—some celebrate pro-crypto shifts, while others criticize potential corruption, amplified by recent posts and viral threads as of October 30, 2025.
What Can Crypto Users Learn from These Events?
Users should prioritize platforms with strong ethical standards, like WEEX, which emphasize compliance to build trust, avoiding the pitfalls seen in pardoned cases and focusing on long-term security.
You may also like
Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday
Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report
$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?
Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?
WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?
Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link
Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?
A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028
When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges
Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…
Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.
Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?
AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway
What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.
How to View the Neobank Era Post Crypto Boom?
《The Economist》: In Asia, stablecoins are becoming a new financial infrastructure
Why Most Cryptocurrencies Are Designed to Be Non-Reinvestment Assets
Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday
Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report
$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?
Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?
WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?
Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link
App