What Sacks Actually Sacrificed: The Double Standard Nobody Mentions

Let's start with what David Sacks gave up to serve as Trump's AI and Crypto Czar:

Personal Divestments:

• $200M+ in crypto holdings sold (BTC, ETH, SOL, Bitwise, Coinbase, Robinhood)

• Massive capital gains tax hit on forced sales

• Missed entire 2024-2025 bull run on assets he believed in

• Zero government salary (unpaid Special Government Employee role)

Craft Ventures Divestments:

• Sold positions in Multicoin Capital

• Exited Blockchain Capital stakes

• Divested Bitwise 10 Index Fund holdings

• Remaining exposure: <0.1% in illiquid holdings through diversified VC funds

The Clearance Process: The Office of Government Ethics reviewed everything, issued formal waivers, and cleared Sacks to serve. He followed every rule, disclosed everything required, and set up recusal protocols for any direct conflicts.

Now compare that to the revolving door Washington has accepted for decades:

The Traditional Finance Standard:

• Treasury Secretaries routinely from Goldman Sachs (regulate former employers)

• Janet Yellen made $7M in Wall Street speaking fees before Treasury

• Fed governors come from banks they'll oversee

• Defense officials from Raytheon/Lockheed (award contracts to old companies)

• Energy secretaries from oil companies (regulate own industries)

• Not one divested $200M or took unpaid roles

When traditional finance does it, that's "expertise" and "bringing private sector experience." When David Sacks does it after divesting everything and getting full ethics clearance, the New York Times calls it corruption and Elizabeth Warren demands investigations.

The double standard is crystal clear: Crypto is held to an impossible standard because Washington wants crypto to fail. They can't attack the technology anymore, so they attack the people building bridges to legitimacy.

The NYT Investigation: A Five-Month Fishing Expedition That Caught Nothing

The New York Times article, titled "Silicon Valley's Man in the White House Is Benefiting Himself and His Friends," deployed five reporters for five months to find evidence of conflicts between Sacks' government role and his tech investments. The result? A 4,000-word piece that strings together implications, opaque timelines, and accusations that fall apart under scrutiny.

The Fabricated Nvidia Dinner:

The most damning example: The NYT alleged Sacks held a dinner with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang where he offered White House access in exchange for policy favors on chip export restrictions.

Sacks' lawyers responded: That dinner never happened. It was completely fabricated.

When confronted with proof, the Times quietly dropped that specific claim but kept the broader "narrative" of improper influence. That's not journalism. That's manufacturing scandal and hoping readers won't notice when the foundation crumbles.

The Clare Locke Letter (November 24th):

Sacks' defamation lawyers at Clare Locke methodically debunked each allegation:

• Ethics clearance timing: Sacks had both his AI and crypto waivers from OGE Times incorrectly suggested he lacked proper authorization

• Defense contracts: Sacks had already divested from relevant holdings within required timeframes

• Crypto exposure: He'd sold everything: BTC, ETH, SOL, and all direct holdings

• Remaining holdings: Only trace amounts through diversified VC funds (six-degrees-of-separation exposure)

The Times' Response:

They published anyway. Their spokesperson defended the piece as documenting "ethical complexities and intertwined interests"—journalist-speak for "we couldn't prove actual wrongdoing but we'll imply it anyway."

Industry Leaders Fight Back:

• Marc Andreessen (28,000 likes): "David volunteered for government service in moments of peril. We need more like him, not fewer"

• Brian Armstrong (10,000+ likes): "NYT is a political propaganda machine - unsubscribe"

• BitGo CEO Mike Belshe: "David didn't need this role - grateful for leaders like him"

The pattern is obvious: The Times built a hypothesis of corruption, received data that contradicted it, then instead of revising the hypothesis, they looked for new angles to salvage the narrative. When the Nvidia dinner fell apart, they pivoted to BitGo. When that didn't hold up either, they just published anyway.

What Sacks Has Actually Delivered: What's At Stake If He's Forced Out

David Sacks didn't just take a government title and collect a paycheck (he's not even getting paid). He's been actively delivering wins for crypto since day one. That's exactly why the establishment wants him gone.

Sacks’ Track Record:

Flipped Trump's Position: In 2022, Trump called crypto a "scam." By 2024, crypto was a top campaign priority. That transformation didn't happen by accident. Sacks hosted the $12 million San Francisco fundraiser, spoke at the Republican National Convention, and became Trump's direct line to Silicon Valley's crypto expertise.

Delivered The GENIUS Act: Stablecoin regulatory clarity became law in July 2025. After years of crypto begging Washington for frameworks instead of enforcement actions, Sacks helped deliver actual legislation that provides the clarity the industry desperately needed.

Strategic Bitcoin Reserve: Trump's announcement of a crypto reserve including BTC, ETH, and SOL represents the first time the U.S. government has treated crypto as strategic infrastructure rather than a threat to be contained. Sacks' fingerprints are all over this policy shift.

Ended The War On Crypto: At Trump's Crypto Ball, Sacks stood on stage and declared "the war on crypto is over." Representing a complete reversal of four years of Operation Chokepoint 2.0, SEC overreach, and regulatory harassment. Banks can work with crypto companies again. Innovation isn't automatically treated as evidence of fraud.

What We Lose If Warren Wins:

If political pressure forces Sacks out, crypto loses more than just one advocate. We lose Trump's most effective crypto translator right when we need him most. The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve needs implementation details. Stablecoin frameworks need refining. AI-crypto integration needs someone who understands both sides.

More importantly, we lose the precedent. If following every ethics rule, divesting $200 million, and serving for free still isn't enough to avoid character assassination, who would ever volunteer next? The message becomes clear: expertise disqualifies you from government service. Only career bureaucrats who've never used crypto are "acceptable" to shape crypto policy.

That's not a bug for Elizabeth Warren, it's the feature. She doesn't want competent crypto leadership. She wants crypto regulated by people who want it to fail.

The Opportunity Cost:

We're at a pivotal moment. The first pro-crypto administration in history is setting up frameworks that could define the industry for decades. Stablecoin regulation, institutional custody rules, DeFi classification, AI-crypto integration—all of this is being decided right now.

Having David Sacks in the room when those decisions are made is the difference between rules written by people who understand the technology versus rules written by people who fear it. The difference between innovation-friendly frameworks versus compliance costs that only incumbents can afford.

This is why they're attacking him. Not because he's corrupt; the five-month investigation proved he's not. But because he's effective, and effectiveness in service of crypto is intolerable to the establishment that's spent years trying to kill it.

The choice isn't complicated: Back the guy who's actually delivering wins, or hand Warren a scalp and watch the momentum evaporate.

In the End

David Sacks divested $200 million, got full ethics clearance, takes zero salary, and has delivered more wins for crypto in one year than the industry saw in the previous four combined. The New York Times spent five months looking for corruption and found nothing. They published anyway.

This isn't a scandal. It's what happens when crypto finally has competent leadership in Washington and the establishment panics.

The stakes are simple: If they can successfully destroy someone who followed every rule and made massive personal sacrifices, no qualified person will ever serve again. We'll be stuck with career bureaucrats who've never used crypto writing the rules that govern it.

That's exactly what Elizabeth Warren wants.

Sacks proved you can have expertise and integrity in Washington. He's fighting to give crypto the regulatory clarity it deserves while surviving coordinated attacks from people whose political careers depend on crypto failing.

It’s on us to have his back.

UNBOUND: Founders Edition

Crypto Endevr is always on the lookout for the latest news and trends in the world of blockchain technology, but it’s not possible without you. Thank you for your support. We look forward to navigating the crypto landscape together in 2025 and beyond!