Opinion: Decelerationists oppose the rise of artificial intelligence to prevent it from dominating society. Similarly, some argue that the United States is aiming to restrain the growth of cryptocurrency.

Decels, also known as decelerationists, have gained attention amid the recent OpenAI controversy. The temporary removal of Sam Altman from his position was interpreted in different ways: some viewed it as a move by safety-conscious pessimists concerned about Altman's ability to handle such powerful technology, while others saw it as a measure to curb Altman's own desire for corporate control.

Former Kraken CEO Jesse Powell pointed out that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a prominent decel within the United States. This assertion came in response to a recent securities lawsuit against the crypto exchange he co-founded.

Both incidents have highlighted a new ideological divide based on our beliefs: Are you an accelerationist who embraces progress and innovation without reservation, or are you a cautious decelerationist eager to slow down the pace of technological advancements?

Accelerationists argue that promoting capitalism is crucial for human development. They advocate for more funding, entrepreneurship, and the exploration of technologies like artificial intelligence and life extension.

The clash between accels and decels is particularly pronounced in the realm of artificial intelligence, where the potential consequences are significant. Decels are skeptical of unchecked progress and prefer a more cautious approach to technological advancement, even if it means fewer startups in Silicon Valley.

While Karl Marx himself might have been considered an early accel, staunch decels argue that mega-corporations like Amazon and Walmart have had negative societal impacts, benefiting a wealthy elite at the expense of exploitation.

However, unlike the singularity concept in artificial intelligence, there isn't a clear equivalent in the crypto realm. It's challenging to determine what crypto-accelerationists strive for beyond blockchain-based anarcho-capitalism.

From the perspective of the crypto community, the U.S. is seen as hindering its growth. The SEC has consistently viewed most cryptocurrencies as unregistered securities, even before Gary Gensler's tenure.

An ideal accel approach by the U.S. would involve removing all capital controls and providing ample funding to fuel innovation, regardless of potential failures along the way. Even a moderately accel stance would support Commissioner Hester Peirce's "safe harbor" proposal, granting crypto startups three years of innovation freedom before facing stringent securities laws.

Instead, the SEC has taken legal action against various crypto entities, indicating a regulatory environment that stifles innovation. This sentiment extends to the Department of Justice's involvement with Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao, demonstrating a lack of accel-mindedness.

While Bitcoin's creator Satoshi Nakamoto has remained elusive from government scrutiny, the landscape for crypto startups in the U.S. has become increasingly challenging. This has prompted warnings from figures like Jesse Powell, advising crypto companies to consider relocating from the regulatory "warzone" of the United States.