I thought the title was a non sequitur, but it's just unclear. What it's saying is that the amount the cryptocurrency industry is spending on this years campaigns in Texas are on track to surpass what that same industry spent in 2024's campaigns in that same state.

It is not comparing the total spending of an entire industry to a total spending of all candidates campaigning in a state.

The only viable use case for crypto appears to be crime. Are we really letting crime finance our elections?

Can you expand on what you mean? It’s easy to say crime=cryptocurrency but a bit more difficult to actually back it up.

As near as I can tell, nobody use crypto for day-to-day transactions because it's deflationary. People do use crypto to buy illicit drugs and guns, pay ransoms, launder money, avoid taxes. Drug cartels settle debts, and oligarchs evade sanctions with it. It looks like particular oligarchs take anonymous crypto as bribes. That's all crime.

Occasionally people speculate using crypto, which isn't technically illegal, but does shade off into unethical. Crypto seems to enable new methods of scams ("rug pulls"), and make older scams easier in the category of "speculation".

The full title is:

> Cryptocurrency industry is on track to surpass 2024 spending on Texas midterm races