In other words, let's muddy up the waters so that the overall pattern that I was trying to highlight becomes less clear. So lets fix my post to say this instead...
"It's a step in the right direction, but I remain skeptical of the relationship between crypto and state actors. They are natural enemies because truly decentralized crypto is anathema to state control. Who runs for office in order to lose power? Such individuals probably have to have one of two main things in mind. Either they are trying to protect their crypto investments, or they are really for centrally controlled blockchain. The latter is completely pointless because a permissioned blockchain is nothing more than an inefficient database. Beware of politicians of support "blockchain" for the purpose of advancing a state run cryptocurrency."
You're pointing out the obvious and obscuring the important. Your alternatives really can fit under one of the two categories I stated. For instance, why would one hate the Fed? Is it primarily because they're worried about their investment, or because he's worried about his neighbors freedom (or maybe because their funding caused some wilted flowers in the Ukraine or a million other reasons)?
As for feeling obligated to constituents, I've rarely met a politician who took that seriously (and I've met a few). Many of them make jokes about how stupid we are for believing their BS when they think we're not looking. If you think Trump's "grabbing pussy" statement is unusual, trust me, it's not and it pales in comparison to some of the other things I've heard in the past half century or so. So let's focus on the reality of what's likely to happen. If you can assemble these other motivations in a symbolically useful way to point out what's likely to happen to crypto Hodlers in the 2020's, I'm all ears...