Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur behind Tesla, SpaceX, and numerous other ventures, is a figure who commands attention. His ability to disrupt industries is matched by his talent for generating headlines, often through provocative social media posts. One of his most notable engagements has been with Dogecoin (DOGE), a cryptocurrency launched in 2013 as a satirical take on the digital currency boom, inspired by a Shiba Inu meme. What began as a playful jest has evolved into something far more consequential—and, increasingly, something that feels like a deception. From an Australian perspective, where scepticism of grandiose promises runs deep, the Dogecoin saga, viewed through the lens of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Legal Advisory LA-22-04.pdf, raises questions not only about Musk’s motives but also about the integrity of government systems more broadly.
The OGE’s Role and Its Impact on Musk’s Ventures
The OGE’s Legal Advisory LA-22-04.pdf, published on 5 July 2022, does not explicitly name Elon Musk, yet its implications resonate across his business interests. The advisory clarifies that cryptocurrencies such as Dogecoin and stablecoins do not qualify as “publicly traded securities” under the exemptions outlined in 5 C.F.R. § 2640.202. As a result, they are ineligible for the de minimis exemptions that permit U.S. government employees to hold modest amounts of traditional securities without breaching conflict-of-interest laws under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a). For a federal employee, owning even a small amount of Dogecoin could preclude participation in matters that might influence its value, with no flexibility afforded.
For Musk, whose companies frequently engage with government—SpaceX through NASA contracts, Tesla via regulatory frameworks—this ruling poses a challenge. The OGE’s position could restrict government personnel involved in blockchain or cryptocurrency policy, potentially delaying progress in fields where Musk’s enterprises operate. Consider a scenario where a SpaceX employee holding DOGE is excluded from a project due to its blockchain implications. To Musk, who has publicly criticised regulatory bodies—labelling the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as overbearing—this might feel like a targeted impediment. Given his vocal disdain for bureaucracy, it’s conceivable he perceives the OGE’s stance as a subtle strike against his ambitions.
Dogecoin: From Humour to Hollow Promise
Dogecoin’s journey mirrors Musk’s flair for the dramatic. His tweets about the coin began in 2019, with light-hearted endorsements escalating by 2021 into bold claims like “Dogecoin to the moon!” The result was a meteoric rise, with its value peaking above $0.70 in May 2021, driven by retail investors captivated by Musk’s influence. Yet, as of 19 March 2025, Dogecoin languishes around $0.10, a stark decline that has left many questioning its legitimacy. From an Australian viewpoint—where “get-rich-quick” schemes are often met with a raised eyebrow—this trajectory smacks of a speculative bubble, inflated by hype and deflated by reality.
The OGE’s advisory underscores the irony. By classifying Dogecoin as an investment asset rather than a security, it places the coin in a regulatory grey zone—too volatile for public servants yet a free-for-all for the public, spurred by Musk’s relentless promotion. This contrast casts Dogecoin as a mockery of ethical standards, a symbol of defiance against the very principles the OGE seeks to uphold. What once seemed a democratic experiment now appears a hollow promise, with Musk’s role shifting from innovator to instigator.
Retribution or Reckless Ambition?
Musk’s Dogecoin advocacy carries an air of retribution. The OGE’s crypto restrictions, while not aimed at him personally, tighten oversight on a sector he champions. His reaction has been to amplify his involvement. Hosting Saturday Night Live in 2021, he dubbed Dogecoin a “hustle”—yet its price surged. In 2023, he teased accepting DOGE for Tesla purchases, only to retreat. These actions sustain the coin’s visibility, fostering volatility that rewards early investors (Musk among them, reportedly) while exposing latecomers to losses. It’s a cycle of provocation and profit, with echoes of defiance against regulatory constraint.
This isn’t merely about Musk’s temperament. The OGE’s crypto-sceptical framework reflects a wider governmental wariness of digital assets, clashing with Musk’s libertarian ethos. He casts himself as a foe of centralised control, yet his Dogecoin exploits erode that image. What began as a humorous aside now feels like a deception—not because the coin is inherently fraudulent, but because its promotion vastly outpaced its substance. Australians, accustomed to scrutinising bold claims, might see this as a classic case of style over substance, with Musk as the charismatic catalyst.
Government and the Spectre of Deception
If Dogecoin’s arc feels deceptive, the OGE’s advisory suggests a broader issue: government itself may harbour systemic flaws akin to scams. The document’s detailed distinctions—diversified mutual funds versus sector funds, $50,000 thresholds—create a complex web that seems ripe for exploitation. Intended to safeguard against conflicts, such rules could inadvertently favour those adept at navigating them. For instance, funds focused on crypto services are “sector funds” with strict limits, while those broadly tied to blockchain are “diversified,” facing fewer restrictions. This hair-splitting invites manipulation by insiders—consultants, lobbyists, or former officials—who can reframe investments to dodge oversight.
This pattern extends beyond the OGE. The SEC’s insider trading controversies and suspiciously timed stock trades by U.S. politicians point to a system where complexity shields privilege. Dogecoin’s absurdity merely reflects this: a game rigged for the influential, leaving the unwary exposed. Musk’s antics amplify the spectacle, but the underlying issue predates him—a government structure that, intentionally or not, mirrors the very deceptions it aims to police.
A Tale of Ethics Undermined
Where does this leave us? Dogecoin, once a quirky novelty, now stands as a cautionary tale—a bubble fuelled by Musk’s rhetoric and punctured by its own lack of foundation. The OGE’s crypto rules, meant to enforce ethics, highlight a disconnect between regulation and innovation, which Musk exploits with apparent relish. Yet, the deeper concern is systemic: if a meme coin can mislead millions, what prevents government from perpetuating its own deceits?
Perhaps the true retribution lies not in Musk’s feud with the OGE, but in a system that punishes transparency with its own opacity. From an Australian perspective, where plain dealing is prized, Dogecoin’s fall—and the OGE’s response—serves as a stark reminder: ethics can be a veneer, and deception a thread running through both markets and halls of power. As Musk tweets on and the OGE regulates, the boundary between scam and governance grows disturbingly thin.