In the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, trends like centralized stablecoins, permissioned blockchains, and corporate treasury companies dominate discussions. These developments, while innovative, seem a far cry from the rebellious, privacy-focused ethos of the cypherpunk movement that birthed much of modern crypto. Yet, surprisingly, one of the most vocal advocates for cypherpunk ideals today comes from an unlikely source: the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Last week, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce delivered a compelling speech at the Science of Blockchain Conference at U.C. Berkeley, titled “Peanut Butter & Watermelon: Financial Privacy in the Digital Age.” In it, she mounted a robust defense of privacy that echoes the foundational principles of the cypherpunk movement, even citing Eric Hughes, the founder of the cypherpunk mailing list and author of the seminal A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto.

Peirce’s remarks highlight a radical perspective for a government regulator, emphasizing how technology can protect privacy where laws fall short. She quotes Hughes directly: “We cannot expect governments, corporations or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence.” This line, drawn from Hughes’ 1993 manifesto, underscores a deep skepticism toward institutional benevolence—a view Peirce amplifies in her speech. Hughes, writing at the dawn of the digital age, argued that “privacy in an open society requires cryptography,” because true privacy demands tools that allow individuals to control their own information without relying on others.

Peirce, speaking in 2025, builds on this by pointing to contemporary technologies as practical realizations of Hughes’ vision. She praises crypto mixers, privacy-preserving blockchains, and even decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN) as mechanisms that enable anonymous transactions. “New and improved technology can diminish the need for us to rely on third parties and thus to hand our information over to them,” Peirce states, succinctly capturing the essence of disintermediation. This aligns closely with Hughes’ call for “systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place,” emphasizing that anonymity empowers individuals to reveal their identity only when they choose.

What makes Peirce’s stance even more striking is her acknowledgment that these technologies must be permitted “even though doing so enables people to use them for bad purposes.” This pragmatic acceptance of potential misuse is quintessentially cypherpunk, prioritizing fundamental privacy rights over absolute control. Hughes, too, envisioned cryptography as a defense against overreach, noting that “we must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any.” Peirce goes further by critiquing the U.S. government’s reliance on the “third-party doctrine,” a legal principle that allows law enforcement to access financial data held by banks without a warrant. She describes it as a “sledgehammer” for financial surveillance and argues that banking records should receive the same Fourth Amendment protections as private activities in one’s home.

Interestingly, this is where Peirce and Hughes might diverge—though not in the way one might anticipate. Hughes’ manifesto acknowledges that once information is shared with a third party, such as in a transaction, “each has a memory of their interaction” and “each party can speak about their own memory of this.” He adds, “we seek not to restrict any speech at all,” which could be interpreted as supporting the idea that third parties, like banks, have a right to disclose information. This mirrors the government’s third-party doctrine. Yet both Peirce and Hughes ultimately place their faith in technology as the safeguard: even if governments won’t protect privacy, tools like cryptography can.

Peirce’s speech also delves into the broader implications of disintermediation enabled by blockchain. She illustrates this with historical anecdotes, such as the shift from human telephone operators to automated systems, which enhanced confidentiality by removing intermediaries. In finance, she argues, technologies like smart contracts and public blockchains can replace centralized entities, reducing the need to hand over personal data. This reduces risks from intermediaries who might mismanage or exploit information, while making services more transparent and accessible.

However, Peirce recognizes the fears these technologies provoke. Incumbent firms worry about losing business, regulators about enforceability, and law enforcement about tracking crimes. She counters that resilient players will adapt, regulations can evolve, and law enforcement has other tools at its disposal. Ultimately, she calls for a balanced approach that doesn’t stifle innovation.

Hughes’ manifesto ends with a call to action: “We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place.” But he adds that “for privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract,” requiring societal cooperation. This remains a challenge today. While most people claim to value privacy, they also support measures against money laundering and terrorism. Few embrace the radical view that privacy’s benefits outweigh its risks.

Peirce’s speech represents an extraordinary alignment between a top regulator and the cypherpunk ethos. If Hughes—whose whereabouts are unknown—were to read it, he’d likely see it as an invitation to the unconverted. As he wrote, “We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you.” In 2025, Hester Peirce has joined that “we,” bridging the gap between regulation and radical privacy advocacy.

Her words serve as a reminder that in the digital age, true privacy may depend less on government grace and more on the technologies we build.