90% of crypto's Illinois primary spending failed to achieve its objective

Crypto super PACs threw $14.2M at Illinois primaries and wiped out 90% of it trying to stop Democrats who... won anyway. The only “wins” were backing frontrunners who were already cruising. It’s the political equivalent of betting on the favorite after the race starts. And the kicker? This was under 6% of their stash, so more is coming.

Commenters lit up the thread. One cynic flat-out argued the real game isn’t flipping elections—it’s buying goodwill from people already likely to win. Another voice shrugged that lobbying wasn’t effective here because demographics and recent local history made the outcomes basically locked. Meanwhile, a third camp brought the heat: don’t talk crypto money without mentioning other big-spend PACs like AIPAC—turning the conversation into a wider fight about dark-money influence and who’s pulling strings.

There was also peak internet humor. A typo—“primary sending”—sparked jokes about literally sending tokens to the wrong wallet, and one commenter snarked that it read like they “mistakenly sent the cryptos to the ‘opposing candidate.’” Meme mode: activated.

For the uninitiated, “super PACs” are political groups that can spend unlimited money to influence elections. In this case, the crowd’s verdict is messy: some say buy sure things, others say money can’t beat math, and a few say we’re ignoring bigger players. Either way, buckle up for eight months of ad-fueled drama.