#MEMEAct Should politicians be banned from promoting crypto assets?**
Senator Chris Murphy's initiative to ban politicians from issuing 'meme-coins' has sparked a discussion: should authorities and their families have the right to launch crypto projects? The arguments in favor are obvious: using public status for personal enrichment creates a conflict of interest and undermines trust in institutions. Examples from the business world, such as Elon Musk with Dogecoin and the $PNUT project, show how media personalities manipulate the market. Musk's tweet about Doge in 2021 drove its price up by 50%, and the subsequent drop devastated thousands of investors. If politicians gain a similar tool, the risks will increase: their influence on regulatory processes could turn the crypto market into a playground for insider schemes.
However, a complete ban is not a cure-all. Clear rules are more important: mandatory declaration of interests, transparency of transactions, and strict penalties for manipulation. For instance, the SEC has already investigated Musk for tweets about Doge, indicating the need for legal mechanisms against abuses.
Unlike businessmen, politicians are accountable to voters. Their access to insider information and levers of power requires special oversight. A ban on crypto assets is not an infringement of freedoms, but a protection of the market and citizens from corruption and speculation. The story of 'Trump coin' is just the tip of the iceberg. Without strict rules, meme coins will become a new weapon in the hands of those who should serve society rather than enrich themselves at its expense.