CrowdStrike company logo

The profile is currenly unclaimed by the seller. All information is provided by CB Insights.

Founded Year




Total Raised


Date of IPO


Market Cap


Stock Price


About CrowdStrike

CrowdStrike (NASDAQ: CRWD) provides cloud-delivered protection across endpoints, cloud workloads, identity, and data. Powered by the CrowdStrike Security Cloud, the CrowdStrike Falcon platform leverages real-time indicators of attack, threat intelligence, evolving adversary tradecraft, and enriched telemetry from across the enterprise to deliver hyper-accurate detections, automated protection and remediation, elite threat hunting, and prioritized observability of vulnerabilities.

CrowdStrike Headquarter Location

150 Mathilda Place

Sunnyvale, California, 94068,

United States


Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Research containing CrowdStrike

Get data-driven expert analysis from the CB Insights Intelligence Unit.

CB Insights Intelligence Analysts have mentioned CrowdStrike in 6 CB Insights research briefs, most recently on Aug 13, 2020.

Expert Collections containing CrowdStrike

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

CrowdStrike is included in 6 Expert Collections, including AI 100.


AI 100

99 items


Tech IPO Pipeline

286 items


Artificial Intelligence

9,051 items

This collection includes startups selling AI SaaS, using AI algorithms to develop their core products, and those developing hardware to support AI workloads.


Conference Exhibitors

5,302 items



5,088 items


Digital Health

13,074 items

Technologies, platforms, and systems that engage consumers for lifestyle, wellness, or health-related purposes; capture, store, or transmit health data; and/or support life science and clinical operations. (DiME, DTA, HealthXL, & NODE.Health)

CrowdStrike Patents

CrowdStrike has filed 89 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Computer network security
  • Cyberwarfare
  • Computer security
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date


Related Topics




Computer network security, Computer security, Malware, Cyberwarfare, Computer security exploits


Application Date


Grant Date



Related Topics

Computer network security, Computer security, Malware, Cyberwarfare, Computer security exploits



Latest CrowdStrike News

Mark Zuckerberg is really excited about the metaverse

Jun 24, 2022

Mark Zuckerberg is really excited about the metaverse He's been extremely active over the past seven days. Zuckerberg is envisioning a digital commerce empire. Photo: Meta June 24, 2022 It’s been a big week for Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Facebook page. The chief executive of Meta has in the past few years transformed his social network account into a press release distribution center, featuring personalized messages about news, product updates and company announcements and usually only ones Zuckerberg himself is pretty excited about. And now hardly a week goes by without some major Facebook post detailing a new product initiative or update about the topic Zuckerberg is most passionate about: the metaverse. Zuckerberg has been extremely active over the past seven days, posting four major company announcements about metaverse-related news. Last Friday, Zuckerberg announced a new store for Meta’s 3D avatars with virtual clothing from luxury brands like Balenciaga and Prada. On Monday, he debuted experimental headset designs from Meta’s VR group. Then, on Tuesday, there was an overhaul to Meta’s monetization system for creators, including news the company would hold off on collecting its share of revenue until 2024 and plans to expand its NFT test to include Instagram Stories and Facebook. On Wednesday, Zuckerberg said his company would be rebranding Facebook Pay into Meta Pay, with the goal of turning it into a “wallet for the metaverse.” The Meta Pay news is a big deal. Before Facebook was Meta, the company tried and failed both publicly and spectacularly to get an ambitious digital currency and crypto platform off the ground. But it failed to woo regulators and eventually shut everything down in January. The remnants of that dream exist today only in the form of Facebook’s digital payments system, which lets users on Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp send money and shop online. After Wednesday’s rebrand, which the company first teased in May, the product is taking on new responsibilities. “Beyond the current features, we're working on something new: a wallet for the metaverse that lets you securely manage your identity, what you own, and how you pay,” Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page. “In the future there will be all sorts of digital items you might want to create or buy — digital clothing, art, videos, music, experiences, virtual events, and more,” he added. “Proof of ownership will be important, especially if you want to take some of these items with you across different services.” Not coincidentally, Meta is one of the founding members of the new Metaverse Standards Forum , an industry group that’s pledging to work toward platform interoperability for the metaverse. Not on the list of members right now: Apple, Niantic or Roblox, though Niantic told Protocol it’s “looking at it.” Zuckerberg is envisioning a digital commerce empire. If Facebook the product became one of the world’s most effective and lucrative advertising machines, then the metaverse of Zuckerberg’s dreams will be the largest and most dynamic shopping mall ever made. “We hope to basically get to around a billion people in the metaverse doing hundreds of dollars of commerce, each buying digital goods, digital content, different things to express themselves,” Zuckerberg told CNBC’s Jim Cramer yesterday. “So whether that’s clothing for their avatar or different digital goods for their virtual home or things to decorate their virtual conference room, utilities to be able to be more productive in virtual and augmented reality and across the metaverse overall,” he said. Zuckerberg clearly sees Meta’s advantages right now — owning the most popular VR platform, investing in early AR hardware and operating social networks used by billions of people — as the reason the company needs to move fast lest it cede any ground to rivals. “We are at this point, you know, a company that can afford to make some big long-term research investments, and this is a big focus,” Zuckerberg said. This isn’t anything we haven’t heard from the Meta CEO over the past nine months, since rebranding the company as Meta. But it does help contextualize many of this week’s announcements. The New York Times reported yesterday that since the metaverse shift, Zuckerberg has been notably less interested in what preoccupied him largely in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. election, like election integrity, Facebook’s reputational issues and data privacy scandals. Instead, the company and its most influential decision-maker are now laser-focused on the metaverse. It’s how Zuckerberg imagines Meta will build the next multibillion-user platform, how the company will make most of its money when or if Facebook and even Instagram’s user bases mostly move on to greener pastures and how it will avoid the pitfalls of building its business on platforms, like mobile, that it does not control. X Coverage | Newsletter | Intel | Events Understand how new technologies like AR and VR, gaming, streaming and Web3 are coming together to form the metaverse. Every Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Email Address Entertainment Thank you for signing up. Please check your inbox to verify your email. Email me an authentication link A login link has been emailed to you - please check your inbox. Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at Heat pumps could keep you and the climate cool. A confluence of factors has brought heat pumps from the HVAC shadows into the mainstream over the past few years. Photo: Silas Stein/picture alliance via Getty Images June 24, 2022 Brian ( @blkahn ) is Protocol's climate editor. Previously, he was the managing editor and founding senior writer at Earther, Gizmodo's climate site, where he covered everything from the weather to Big Oil's influence on politics. He also reported for Climate Central and the Wall Street Journal. In the even more distant past, he led sleigh rides to visit a herd of 7,000 elk and boat tours on the deepest lake in the U.S. June 24, 2022 Everyone from the president to the International Energy Agency to Google users simply cannot stop talking about heat pumps. A confluence of factors has brought heat pumps from the HVAC shadows into the mainstream over the past few years. But things really came together for heat pumps this month when Biden signed off on using the Defense Production Act to spur more heat pump production. With the prospect of more heat pumps on shelves (or wherever heat pumps are stored), now’s as good a time as ever to understand the climate-protecting technology that just so happens to save people money and keep homes comfortable in all seasons. What is a heat pump, and how does it work? At its simplest, a heat pump moves heat from one place to another. The concept is relatively ancient history, dating back to 1852 , though it took a while before heat pumps came into existence. Today, there are two main flavors of heat pumps: air source and ground source. They work basically the same way, pumping or dumping heat from the air or ground. For the ground source version, a series of coils or a long pipe are installed underground and filled with antifreeze. The antifreeze circulates and draws on the ground’s constant temperature in the 50s. In the winter, that antifreeze is pushed through a compressor that turns it into a gas, a process that heats it up, before it’s piped over a fan that sends heat into a home while cooler air is drawn out. The system works in reverse in the summer. Neat! Why are heat pumps good for the climate? If you read the above explanation, you may have noticed one thing missing in the description of how heat pumps keep a house cozy in winter: fossil fuels. And that is why heat pumps are the stuff of climate dreams. The Biden administration wants to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. There are many avenues to do that, but decarbonizing buildings is a vital one. Buildings are responsible for 13% of American greenhouse gas pollution . While overall building emissions peaked in the mid-2000s, speeding up the decline is vital to protecting the climate. Heat pumps have the potential to replace methane gas furnaces, which use a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide for fuel, as well as oil and wood-burning stoves. Getting a heat pump in every single-family home in the U.S. would shave at least 160 million metric tons of carbon pollution off the American balance sheet annually. So what’s the holdup? Supply chain woes have also come for the heat pump , sadly. But Biden invoking the Defense Production Act could help make them a bigger priority, opening things up a bit. The up-front cost of a heat pump is also a challenge. Geothermal heat pumps can run into the tens of thousands of dollars depending on the location. Air source ones are cheaper, and mini splits are cheaper still, though you’ll need one for each zone of your home so costs can add up. That’s not to say investing in a heat pump is a bad idea; an analysis by Carbon Switch found that a heat pump would save the average household $557 per year on the utility bill. That analysis was done before the Russian war in Ukraine caused gas prices to skyrocket, so the savings could be even greater today. They’re also not super great in really cold climates, though the Department of Energy has a program to try and fix that. But there’s hope. A number of companies are attempting to help make heat pumps more accessible. Dandelion Energy , a startup that spun out of Google’s moonshot factory, is a one-stop shop for heat pump consultation and installation. BlocPower , another startup, is working on ensuring that heat pumps are accessible in low-income, multiunit buildings. (It’s also helping electrify the entire cities of Ithaca, New York and Menlo Park.) Gradient , meanwhile, is making window unit heat pumps for renters. That’s just the tip of the heat pump innovation iceberg. What happens next? The Defense Production Act alone isn’t going to spur heat pump mass adoption. Some states offer incentives already; New York, for example, has an array of incentives, including thousands of extra dollars in rebates for low-income homes. Getting more states — and utilities — on board with policies that help people prioritize installing heat pumps over their fossil-fueled counterparts is essential. The federal government could also have a role to play. The Build Back Better Act included $6 billion for a program that would kick landlords and homeowners money for electrification retrofits, including heat pumps. Most of that money would be targeted at tribal and low-income communities, creating more heat pump justice. That’s particularly important since poor households spend four times more on their utility bills than wealthy ones due in part to inefficient appliances. The act would also boost what’s known as the 25C tax credit, a home efficiency upgrade incentive that currently maxes out at $500. Electrification think tank Rewiring America said those portions of the legislation that’s currently in Senate limbo are “critical to unlocking heat pump adoption.” Keep ReadingShow less Internet for Growth, an initiative of the Interactive Advertising Bureau , supports the transformative role the advertising-supported internet plays in empowering America's small businesses, helping entrepreneurs bring their ideas to life. Supported by a diverse community of over 700 IAB members including marketers, agencies, publishers, platforms and ad tech providers, as well as hundreds of small businesses and creators, Internet for Growth highlights the benefits the internet delivers to local economies, expanding opportunities for innovators to reach markets far beyond their neighborhoods. Their work ensures people understand the limitless opportunity the internet provides for creativity and commerce, fair competition, and connecting with consumers on mutually shared values and interests, no matter the background or geography. May 31, 2022 Logan Niles, Founder, Pot Pie Factory Smaller companies like ours are buckling under the weight of unprecedented price increases, supply chain shortages and rising labor prices. To increase our marketing reach on a slim budget, the internet is our best option. Internet marketing is critical to the survival of our business. It's one of the most affordable, effective forms of marketing at our disposal. Limiting our options will only hurt us at a time when we need every opportunity possible to stay in business. Small companies like ours are competing with much larger competitors to reach the same customers in a busy, crowded space. How many Valpaks, grocery store flyers and random postcards from local businesses have you discarded in the last month? We’re all overloaded with physical junk mail. Even if an offer catches our eye, there’s no instant online access or interactivity. Generational shifts have also impacted marketing. For younger generations, digital media is a part of everyday life. How they shop, date and travel: It’s all digital. For most of our customers, shopping online is the norm, and their payment choices are digital too, including at pop-up and live events. The digital economy is a way of life and here to stay. Congress needs to be careful tampering with digital advertising tools that Pot Pie Factory needs to stay in business. June 24, 2022 In mid-2018, Nir Zuk, the founder and CTO of Palo Alto Networks, took the stage at a company event and introduced the world to a new type of cybersecurity product. In the four years since, his concept, which he dubbed "XDR," has swept through the industry. It's now a focal point for virtually every major vendor in the security industry. In a recent interview, Zuk did not sound happy about the whole thing. Not at all. XDR, which stands for "extended detection and response," revolves around the premise that security is most effective when all the data from across a customer’s IT environment can be correlated and analyzed together as a whole. It aims to accomplish this feat by bringing together all of a customer's systems and cybersecurity tools into a unified, integrated platform. Certainly, the cybersecurity industry is notorious for its buzzwords and acronyms. But XDR is not your average security acronym: If you believe the leaders of many top players in the industry, XDR could be the architecture of the future for cybersecurity. XDR is "the way to actually prevent damage from breaches, and the way to scale and deeply automate security with a scarce talent pool," said Wendy Thomas, president and CEO of Secureworks, which heavily focuses on XDR. According to proponents, embracing an XDR-based approach can address many of the pressing issues that security teams face: the overload in alerts, difficulty in prioritizing threats, tool sprawl . As IT gets more complex, "it's becoming harder and harder for humans to operate cybersecurity," Zuk said. However, he is far from thrilled with how others have adapted his idea. There are too many varying uses and misuses out there right now for “XDR” as a term — and in many cases, it's just a new label slapped on old products, Zuk argued. "I think XDR, today, is just a term that different vendors use differently," he said, acknowledging that XDR has joined a long line of enterprise tech terms that have devolved into nebulous buzzwords. Still, the high level of attention around XDR makes the confusion in the market a bigger issue than it might normally be. XDR is expected to see surging adoption in the coming years, with Gartner forecasting that 40% of organizations will be deploying the technology by 2027, up from 5% as of last fall. "XDR is definitely something that we recommend organizations look into," said Patrick Hevesi, a vice president and analyst at Gartner, thanks to its ability to integrate more data feeds into detection and response efforts. Thinking like a hacker XDR aims to detect security issues across entire IT environments because that's how attackers operate: Hackers get inside one system operated by an organization, then move around to others during the course of an attack. As the thinking goes, if you just look at the end point — or network, application or cloud infrastructure — you're only going to see a slice of what an attacker is doing. If you can view everything together, as XDR seeks to, then you have a better shot at stopping attacks such as ransomware at an early stage. In other words, XDR is the security industry's answer to many of the questions that customers are asking as they grapple with an increasingly complex set of environments in 2022. Most XDR vendors agree on all these reasons for why the approach is so promising. But from there, the question of how to define XDR gets more contentious. "I firmly believe it's one of the most misused or abused terms in the industry," said Michael Sentonas, CTO at CrowdStrike, which made its name on end point detection and response (EDR) and announced its expansion into XDR last fall. It's notable that so many of the biggest players in the industry are moving aggressively to offer some version of an XDR platform. In addition to CrowdStrike and Secureworks, Microsoft, SentinelOne, Mandiant, Trellix, Sophos, Cisco and VMware are among those who've joined Palo Alto Networks on the list of XDR platform vendors. As of this writing, Protocol has identified 34 security vendors that are marketing XDR products, and there are likely many more. (The figure also excludes providers of managed XDR services .) But at this stage, there is little agreement among industry players about what constitutes a "true" XDR — leaving it up to customers to figure out what's what. "It's hard to talk about the term ‘XDR,’ because every organization defines it the way that they want. And industry analysts have not yet solidified, as a group, what the definition of XDR is," said Mandiant CTO Marshall Heilman. Extending to new areas When Zuk first revealed his notion of XDR four years ago, he chose the terminology to make a specific point: EDR, or end point detection and response, is not sufficient because attackers don't just target the end point. The same problem applies to detection tools just focused on the network, cloud or applications. In Zuk's original definition of XDR, the "X" stood for "anything" — as in, any type of system that a threat actor might leverage in an attack. However, according to the consensus today, the “X” stands for "extended." As in, detection and response that extends past any one environment. The industry's conception of XDR has also evolved in ways that are more consequential. For one thing, many vendors now offer XDR-branded products that also leverage data from third-party tools. Platforms that use data from multiple vendors' tools are now commonly referred to as "open" or "hybrid" XDR. Offerings that use data from a single vendor's tools — such as Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft or Cisco — have come to be known as "native" XDR. Both native and open XDR approaches can have their advantages, though much depends on how the vendor sets things up, said Forrester Analyst Allie Mellen. Open XDR is touted as offering the flexibility to leverage existing security tools, bringing together data feeds from the products that customers have already invested in. But that apparent advantage of open XDR could actually be a downside if the third-party tools are not integrated effectively, Mellen said. "I question whether or not the detection quality is going to remain high, if they're just developing integrations willy-nilly and trying to support as many as possible," she said. The purpose of XDR is to better tailor and curate the experience for the security team, so managing integrations well is critical. "It has to be done with intentionality," Mellen said. Ultimately, she is hesitant to say that open XDR is generally superior to native XDR. Some native XDR vendors have gained reputations for providing high-value detections, "because they know and understand everything in the environment," Mellen said. "They know all of the telemetry that's coming in. And they choose what telemetry is coming in. So I think it's a bit of a trade-off." A related issue with open XDR is that, essentially, no single vendor is accountable for the security outcome from the use of the platform, said Frank Dickson, group vice president for Security and Trust at IDC. If a customer chooses to secure their environment with an XDR platform that ties together tools from disassociated vendors via APIs, then the customer is accountable, Dickson said. "That's one of the shortcomings of open XDR," he said. "By open XDR, what that fundamentally says is, the customer owns the outcome. The vendor doesn't own the outcome." 'Not being honest' Zuk argues that there's an even bigger problem with open XDR. Such platforms give the impression that they can leverage data that they don't actually have, he says. For instance, Palo Alto Networks is among the largest network security vendors, but "none of these [open XDR] vendors is using our data," Zuk said. Ultimately, open XDR vendors "are not being honest when they say that they have the third-party data," he said. All of which means that the results for attack detection and response are inevitably going to be "sub-optimal," according to Zuk. "[The XDR] buzz is outpacing the market," said Andrew Maloney, co-founder and COO at cybersecurity firm Query.AI. Photo: Kyle Alspach/Protocol An executive at another prominent native XDR vendor, Microsoft, made a similar point. Rob Lefferts, corporate vice president for Microsoft 365 Security, said that to be effective with XDR, "you have to actually deeply know the tool that you are investigating — you can't just dump in a bunch of data." To Lefferts, the concept of open XDR seems to be no different than that of security information and event management (SIEM). And indeed, analysts have noted that a number of SIEM vendors have simply rebranded their products as XDR. "I look at open XDR, and I'm like, 'Oh, you mean a SIEM? Is that what an open XDR is?'" Lefferts said. Not surprisingly, executives at major providers of open XDR platforms would disagree. While some open XDR platforms do have their origins as a SIEM, that's not universally true, said Secureworks Chief Product Officer Steve Fulton. His company touts its open XDR platform as being "purpose-built" for running detection and response across multiple environments. Open XDR recognizes that most customers do not have tools from just one vendor in their environment and will prefer to leverage their existing investments, Fulton said. Most customers do not want to have to "rip and replace" their security tool set just to use XDR, according to Fulton. "If you're a native XDR vendor and you're saying, 'You have to have our stack in order to get value out of XDR,' you're going to be pretty narrow in your scope. You're going to miss some things with that approach," Fulton said. "My view is, that approach is going to die away over time." With an open approach to XDR, on the other hand, "we firmly believe it drives the best security outcomes for our customers," he said. "It's going to give you the widest possible aperture." End point advantage At Trellix, the company formed through the merger of McAfee Enterprise and FireEye, CEO Bryan Palma pointed to XDR as the vendor's biggest opportunity looking ahead. The company's core strategy following its rebranding announcement in January has been seeking to become the leading player in XDR, in fact, by integrating both native tools and an open XDR approach. XDR is "not next-gen SIEM. It's not next-gen end point [security]. It's broader. It's a platform,” Palma said. "It's bringing together your capabilities to create a next-level architecture — which is very different than, 'This is the next SIEM.’” That being said, there are certain elements that any XDR provider should be expected to offer, namely, end point detection and security operations capabilities, according to Palma. "I just don't know how you're a viable player [in XDR] if you don't have an end point," he said. "I think to be a true XDR, you've got to have end point capabilities." In terms of security operations, XDR should be able to automatically correlate security issues detected across different environments and present the findings to security analysts for further investigation, Palma said. CrowdStrike's Sentonas goes a step further in his criteria for what constitutes true XDR: Not only should XDR be able to cut across all of a customer's environments, but there should be essentially no difference between the data coming in from different vendors' tools, allowing for detections that work effectively regardless of the data source. "The problem we believe we should be solving with XDR is not to just bring in third-party data, but to actually do something meaningful with it, and that is to focus on automated detections," Sentonas said. Doing this entails a concerted effort around ensuring that the security data "all works the same. It all looks the same. The language between all the vendors, if you will, is exactly the same," he said. The benefit is that machine learning models "should work the same way on another vendor's data as it does on ours." Many XDR vendors, however, are not treating the data in this way, so they can't extend all of their native detection and response capabilities to third-party tools, Sentonas said. Automated response A number of XDR vendors fall short when it comes to the "response" portion of extended detection and response, according to Nicholas Warner, president of Security at SentinelOne. "That is the difference between XDR and SIEM," Warner said. "Anyone can generate an alert. Not just anyone can actually orchestrate a response — and then make that an automatic response and an effective response." And that is where end point detection and response vendors have a natural advantage over "pure-play" XDR vendors, he said. "In which way could a pure-play XDR vendor do execution control on a system as a response? And the answer would be, they wouldn't be able to," Warner said. "And that's pretty big. Because that is the 'R' in XDR." Marketing about XDR was ubiquitous at the RSA Conference in San Francisco earlier this month. The only serious rival for the biggest buzzword at the conference was "zero trust" — which, like XDR, lacks an agreed-upon definition by the security industry. But compared to zero trust, which is widely understood to be more of an architectural concept, XDR is actually a product in some cases. Increasingly, it's also being offered as a managed service, given the shortage of available security professionals to operate an XDR platform. Andrew Maloney, co-founder and COO at cybersecurity firm Query.AI, which does not offer an XDR platform, said he thinks the idea of taking down silos between data and tying all systems together is the right goal for cybersecurity as a whole. But whether you're talking about a "native" or "open" approach to XDR, "the buzz is outpacing the market," Maloney said. "Now every big player claims an XDR capability,” he said, “whether they have it or not." Keep ReadingShow less Sen. Cynthia Lummis acknowledged a key point got downplayed in her new crypto regulation bill. Photo: Office of Sen. Cynthia Lummis June 23, 2022 Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel ) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342. June 23, 2022 Sen. Cynthia Lummis emerged as a leading voice on crypto regulation with the introduction of a bipartisan bill for sweeping regulation of a fast-growing industry. But she acknowledges that a key point got downplayed when the bill, which she co-authored with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, was introduced about three weeks ago: Yes, the CFTC will play an important role in regulating crypto — but so will the SEC. “Here's the problem, and it's something I probably helped to create,” she said. The cryptocurrencies with the largest market value — bitcoin and ether — are definitely commodities that will be regulated by the CFTC. “But there are a number of very small cryptocurrencies that are going to probably be at the Securities and Exchange Commission,” she added. “These are assets that need disclosure, where the public needs consumer protection because some of these are just fraudulent.” Lummis, who is one of the few members of Congress to own crypto, elaborated on what the bill hopes to accomplish in an interview with Protocol. She also discussed her biggest worries about the legislation, including infighting within the crypto industry where companies are “kind of butting heads” as they try “to be the big dog in shaping and influencing the legislation.” This interview was edited for clarity and brevity. Can you talk about the very first conversation you had with Sen. Gillibrand about working on a bill for digital assets? I've been working on this piece of legislation for quite some [time]. We identified several wonderful Democrat senators who are very interested in this topic, but some of them have a full portfolio of legislative priorities already. So I couldn't have been more delighted when Sen. Gillibrand approached me in the Capitol building. She is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. When that committee held a hearing and began to understand the significant role that the CFTC would be playing in the regulatory regime on digital assets, she took a really deep dive into this subject. She is a 12-year securities lawyer in private practice in New York. So this is a subject area with which she was very familiar. It was natural for her, and she’s turned out to be just the best possible partner I could ever imagine. What were the areas where you disagreed? It did take some negotiations with Sen. Gillibrand and her team over details. But the major structural framework was something that we found agreement on: the fact that we wanted to take the very regulatory framework that applies to traditional assets and lay the digital asset framework on top of it, leaving jurisdiction with the CFTC, the SEC in the case of securities and in some cases, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. We were in agreement about the basic structure. The little things that came up after that were really pretty easy to resolve. We found less friction between us than we found among some of the trade organizations that represent different aspects of the digital asset industry. They were kind of butting heads, and so we had to try to referee their efforts to be the big dog in shaping and influencing the legislation. Can you give an example, Senator? We had to leave some issues out of the bill because some groups were saying, “If you put that in, we will oppose the bill.” Other groups were saying, “If you don't put that in, we will oppose the bill.” So for now, we left some things out. But I think you will see them as standalone bills later in the process as people begin to understand the utility of adding some of those provisions back in. You know, this is a big process that we're engaged in. What were some of the elements that were left out because it would create more disunity? Well, if I tell you, it almost explains who these groups are. And I know that sounds like a chicken’s answer. But we're trying to pull these groups together at the same time that we pulled Democrats and Republicans together. So I don't want to explain what's on the cutting-room floor for now because you're apt to see it again. There was a perception when the bill was announced in early June that you want the CFTC to take the lead in regulating crypto. But you and Sen. Gillibrand have been pushing back on that view . Here's the problem, and it's something I probably helped to create. Probably the largest market cap within the digital asset world is going to be at the CFTC. But there are a number of very small cryptocurrencies that are going to probably be at the Securities and Exchange Commission. These are assets that need disclosure, where the public needs consumer protection because some of these are just fraudulent. We need to make sure that for those legitimate digital assets like bitcoin, which is, in so many ways, the hardest money that's ever been created in the history of the world, that their credibility isn't tarnished by digital assets that were fraudulently created with nefarious intent. Some people are so new to this industry that they don't realize there are over 15,000 cryptocurrencies, most of which are probably going to be regulated at the SEC. But in terms of market share, you've got two cryptocurrencies that are around 60% of market share: bitcoin and ether. So the bigger ones are more apt to be at the CFTC. Certainly bitcoin will be at the CFTC. You introduced this bill at a time when the crypto market crash was becoming more pronounced, highlighted by the Terra-luna collapse. How did that affect your thinking about crypto and this bill? Well, I think it helped to illustrate the need for this bill. When you have, for example, a digital asset that is an algorithmic stablecoin that is not backed by anything, it's important that we show that in our bill that type of stablecoin could not exist. The stablecoins that we authorize would be those that are either issued by a financial institution insured by the FDIC or are 100% hard asset-backed. We want to make sure that when people are dealing with a stablecoin, especially a dollar-denominated or fiat-backed stablecoin, that it is stable. I mean, that's the whole point of calling it a stablecoin. There’s the view stablecoins will likely be covered in separate legislation, especially given the push for a U.S. digital dollar to be issued by the Federal Reserve. I am of the opinion that the direct-to-consumer product will actually be stablecoins. Within the central banks, there could be a CBDC, but it would remain behind the scenes within the wholesale entities, the Federal Reserve, its 12 regional banks and the Bank for International Settlements and central banks around the world. That's how they could transmit money among themselves. But in the U.S., I believe that the direct-to-consumer product will be stablecoins. So the bill authorizes a study of CBDCs, and specifically with an eye towards the digital yuan and analyzing the differences that it presents and the way that it is used in China to what we might want to have here. I think it's helpful to have that information. The digital yuan is direct-to-consumer. It's also a means of surveillance. We don't want a CBDC that is dollar-denominated that could be used as a means of surveillance. We don't want the federal government using a CBDC to cut out financial institutions that are in business to evaluate credit-worthiness. So this is not a way to cut out banks. This is not a way to cut out custodial institutions that custody digital assets. A CBDC should be kept within the central banks. The crash is bringing back a lot of memories of the financial crisis 14 years ago. How will this impact the deliberations in terms of convincing fellow senators to support this initiative? Certainly news about digital assets imploding is something that makes people fully aware in Congress that it's time for some regulation. We’re trying to point out as digital assets fail where our piece of legislation would have either prevented that failure because that asset would have been unable to exist under our regulatory regime without sufficient backing, or where we can fix the bill to address the kinds of problems that arise when a digital asset implodes. A year ago, nobody was talking about digital assets in Congress, maybe except for me. When it came to the forefront was when the infrastructure bill had a definition of broker that really misidentified the roles of miners and validators and just really fundamentally misunderstood what information they have access to. That’s what started bringing members of Congress together to begin to address some of these issues. There is also the perception that the crypto industry prefers the CFTC as the main regulator and would even want to sideline the SEC. How do you view that perception? I actually think it's better to have both involved. Under our bill, the CFTC has spot market and futures jurisdiction for those digital assets that are commodities. If you apply the Howey Test [and] they come out on the commodity side, they’ll be at the CFTC. That is the majority of the market cap of digital assets. But there are thousands of cryptocurrencies that, under the Howey Test, are securities. They just are. The SEC is really good at disclosure and consumer protection. We want people to know under disclosures which assets used for what purpose are legitimate and which ones are fraudulent. SEC Chair Gary Gensler has been harshly criticized for the way he has approached digital assets. What is your own evaluation of his performance? One thing I've heard from the industry is they just can't stand regulation by enforcement action. And understandably so. If you're trying to do business, you're trying to guess what the regulatory framework might look like, and all of a sudden you're slapped with an enforcement action, that's no way to do business. So I totally get it. I understand the frustration. But I also understand that Gary Gensler really does have a deep knowledge of digital assets. He's very knowledgeable. So it's my opinion that he is attempting to regulate from a knowledgeable perspective and not out of a lack of understanding of these assets. We have him and staff at the SEC looking at our bill. They've looked at it before. We've gotten very constructive feedback from them. Now that we have filed it, we'll continue to ask for their feedback and everybody else's feedback. When I hear things like how much the industry dislikes regulation by enforcement action, you know, I tell Chair Gensler just so he knows what I'm hearing. You introduced this bill at a time when there are really deep divisions in Congress. How confident are you that this is going to pass? I think there's a chance yet that certain components of this bill might get hearings this calendar year. It would kind of surprise me if any part of this bill passes during this calendar year. I think we're probably looking at legislation next year. But it's sitting out there where people can comment on it, make changes to it. And we'll continue to hope that that is the case. There is legislation on stablecoins that has been drafted by Sen. Toomey. There's legislation within the Agriculture Committee on CFTC jurisdiction issues by the chair, and the ranking member of that committee. Sen. Gillibrand is on that committee. I'm on the Banking Committee, and we think that our different pieces of legislation are very blendable. They're very able to conform to each other easily. So there's a chance that one or the other of those could come forward this year. But I think it's a slight chance because, as you pointed out, we've been wrestling with issues that are unrelated to digital assets. But the reason that I think that our bill will ultimately be the framework for legislation is it's comprehensive. It's bipartisan. It has been thoroughly vetted by the industry and the regulators already. They're familiar with it. They're talking about it as sort of the base vehicle. What parts of the bill are likely to move forward sooner rather than later? I think that the stablecoin part and the CFTC spot and futures jurisdiction parts are the easier ones to pass. As you pointed out, the industry itself is more comfortable with CFTC regulating than SEC regulating. What is your biggest worry? We've been spending a lot of time educating other members about digital assets. We really do have in the Congress people who are very sophisticated in their understanding now about digital assets, and we still have people who say, “Show me a bitcoin.” That's a huge spectrum of knowledge and understanding and lack thereof. So we've been spending a lot of time educating our colleagues and their staff. We bring speakers in. We have dinners. We invite experts. We let them ask questions behind closed doors so you don't feel stupid, asking questions that you think would divulge your lack of understanding about this subject. We think we're making progress. Here's the other thing that's been great about it. This is nonpartisan. This has never been partisan so far. And I don't think it will be. I think that both in the Senate and in the House where they're also working on legislation, you're seeing it be very bipartisan. So we will probably even try to find friends in both parties who might be interested in picking up this bill in its entirety and filing it in that House so both bodies have the same base working document. I suppose what I worry about the most is that the industry will start fighting within itself and will become its own worst enemy in trying to get something passed. For example, I think that there's some advantages to having a self-regulatory organization. Some groups don't like that idea. If that fight were to become very divisive within the industry, it would prevent us from being able to move the bill forward easily when the industry itself is lacking cohesion. So that's probably my biggest concern. You’re referring to the proposal for a body like FINRA as a self-regulatory body for the crypto industry. But you're saying there are some in the industry who are not crazy about that idea. Exactly right. And so while they're butting heads, it makes it hard for us to move forward on provisions like that. It was reported that you owned five bitcoins as of 2013 and you reported having bitcoin worth between $50,000 and $100,000 in October. How have you been affected by the crypto market slump? You know, I got so much grief for owning bitcoin that I put everything in a blind trust. So I don't know if I own five bitcoins anymore, because it's in the hands of a trustee. But if I do, good heavens, those five bitcoins would have fallen below $100,000 in value last week. But as I've tried to explain, I'm a HODLer. I'm holding on to my bitcoin for as long as I can and I hope to be able to pass them to my grandsons because I just believe they're going to, in the long run, hold value and grow in value and I'm looking for a store of value. That is the reason I personally hold bitcoin. It is only going to be one of the reasons people might want to have bitcoin. Some might want to use it as a means of exchange, and certainly the technologies are growing and becoming available to do that. Do you know people who were affected by the slump who invested a lot and lost a lot? Well, I think there were companies that were taking bitcoin as collateral and then lending it out. I don't know any of those people personally, but certainly they're out there. It's another cautionary tale about why this industry could benefit from light-touch regulation that hits that sweet spot we're looking for, which is “don't stifle innovation, keep innovation in America” but nevertheless provides adequate consumer protection for people who want to participate as owners of digital assets. Keep ReadingShow less Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC ) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with. June 23, 2022 Tech groups and their allies are spending huge amounts on TV and digital ads in an all-out war against Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s tech antitrust bill. The flood of money isn’t surprising, but the Washington players helping them spend it are. Silicon Valley is relying on many of the same firms that helped elect lawmakers to influence those same politicians. This collision of capitalism and the Capitol raises questions about whose interests the consultants are serving when the goals of their political clients diverge from those of lucrative corporate accounts. According to a Protocol review of public spending disclosures, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a Big Tech trade group that has reportedly spent more than $23 million trying to sink Klobuchar’s bill and similar efforts, has worked with Democratic ad-makers to place many of those TV spots. Some of the ads, including the CCIA’s work, appear to be aimed at states like New Hampshire or Arizona, where Democratic senators are facing tough reelection campaigns and are reportedly on the fence about the legislation. Disclosures show purchases of or inquiries about broadcast and cable spots by a company called Pier 91 in New Hampshire and Arizona as well as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Nevada. In many cases, the filings detail opposition to the bill explicitly. Although Pier 91 is a little-known ad buyer, its mailing address is the same as a prominent Democratic-allied public relations company and political vendor known as GMMB, and local D.C. business records confirm that Pier 91 is a trade name of the latter firm. GMMB boasts that it’s what "Presidents Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have in common." Political campaign spending records reveal that, aside from CCIA, its clients in the current political cycle include the Democratic National Committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Maggie Hassan. Hassan, who represents New Hampshire, appears to be worried about voting for the tech antitrust bills, according to POLITICO . Working with GMMB to fight against the antitrust legislation is just the latest example of how Big Tech hires left-leaning campaign alumni, former government staff and consultants to sharpen the company’s work in Washington. Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project and a critic of corporate involvement in politics, said it didn’t raise many ethical concerns for firms with expertise in polling or messaging to help businesses with sales marketing, as opposed to their Washington efforts. “Less distinguishable and much more troubling is when you’re doing politics for a corporation and doing politics for an elected official,” Hauser said. He argued that the two lines of business give consultants motive to try to alter candidates’ positions or insights to send back to Big Business. “No one can really firewall their own brain.” GMMB didn’t comment on Pier 91’s contracts. A CCIA spokesperson confirmed the firm is helping with “the concept and creatives for some of the TV ads we are running and then the strategy and logistics for booking in the various states,” but said GMMB’s work on campaigns was not a factor in the relationship. CCIA’s president, Matt Schruers, also insisted that his group isn’t working against a unified Democratic priority. “We are finding that, as more Dems learn about the risks this bill pose[s] for security, privacy and digital services' existing efforts to moderate content online, they become concerned that it isn't ready for prime time," he told Protocol. Consultants’ work has occasionally gotten the firm in hot water, though, and it often continues in a way that’s essentially invisible to the public even as — or, in many cases, because — the Democrats who are currently in power are leading charges against those same tech giants. When Amazon was facing a backlash from local and progressive politicians over its plans to build its second headquarters in Queens, New York, for instance, the company turned to another major Democratic-allied firm, SKDK, according to local reports . Former political clients of the communications and strategy specialists include then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was a fan of the tech giant’s plans, as well as both Obama and Biden. But SKDK also specializes in work with corporate clients and boasts work for tech companies. (Amazon abandoned its New York plans in 2019.) SKDK — where partner Anita Dunn is the kind of Democratic communications fixture that presidents ask for by name — says, in fact, that prospective clients working on tech issues should expect results precisely because of the firm’s work on behalf of campaigns and liberal causes. “Our team has worked with many of the lawmakers and regulators who set the policies that guide your work and your products,” SKDK claims . “We understand what you’re up against. And we can help position you for success.” In addition to the work for Amazon, SKDK, which does not publicize all of its clients, pushed for a tax break for companies’ offshore profits back in the Obama administration. The WIN America campaign — which was stuffed with Democratic former government officials, according to a Bloomberg report — was led by Google, Apple and Cisco. At the time, the chairman of the Senate’s tax-writing committee was Democrat Max Baucus. In that case, as with the antitrust issue, the work by Democratic firms seemed to equip companies to push a viewpoint to appeal to Democrats generally or even particular lawmakers then in power. Efforts by professional Democratic consultants on behalf of Amazon, and other big business interests resisting Democrats’ agenda, have occasionally prompted outcry from the party’s core constituencies. Earlier this year, for instance, major unions slammed another Democratic firm, the Global Strategy Group, for its efforts to stop Amazon workers from unionizing in Staten Island. Major labor groups including the Service Employees International Union distanced themselves from GSG after the polling firm’s work emerged. GSG said it was “deeply sorry” for its activities. BerlinRosen, another firm with close ties to New York Democrats and labor groups, worked for Sidewalk Labs, the smart city company that’s part of Google parent Alphabet, reportedly on a project to develop a tech hub in Toronto. The project fell through in 2020, in part over concerns about Big Tech’s involvement. BerlinRosen has not limited itself to helping Big Tech: The firm also represents the Teamsters in work to push back on Amazon and organized efforts to get people off Meta services, especially in light of social justice concerns . The firms usually do checks for conflicts and won’t work against a client, but it’s not clear if there’s any standard arrangement in hiring or staffing to mitigate the kinds of conflicts that can occur when outside firms are in a position to steer politicians’ positions or to give companies’ efforts the kind of sparkle that only information from a campaign can provide. There can be awkward transitions. As a candidate in 2020, Joe Biden repeatedly slammed Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Now, Ben LaBolt , a top-ranking communications alumnus of Obama’s reelection campaign who has advised the Biden White House, is a partner at Bully Pulpit Interactive and has represented Mark Zuckerberg regarding his donations to 2020 election infrastructure. Sometimes, the projects also include work with the stable of lobbying organizations that the tech companies have set up. Precision Strategies, which was founded by some of the top staffers and digital experts in Obama’s campaigns, does media outreach for TechNet, which represents most of Big Tech and is one of the trade groups in the scramble to speak for the industry on privacy . Despite such work, few of the communications and strategy firms themselves ever have to register to lobby. Federal lobbying transparency rules focus on those who spend a lot of time contacting legislators and regulators directly. By contrast, the Democratic (and Republican) firms that support Big Tech tend to offer advertising, media relations, messaging strategy and other services that don’t usually trigger any disclosure requirements. The projects also allow Washington firms to shield themselves from the boom-and-bust of election cycles by putting in place longer-lasting contracts with big tech companies. With Democrats in power, it’s natural to scrutinize the firms that cater to them. But the relationships with Big Tech are ubiquitous on the right, too. Targeted Victory, the GOP answer to the Democrats’ early-2010s digital advantages, helped place op-eds on behalf of Meta that portrayed its rival TikTok in a negative light, according to a Washington Post report earlier this year. And NetChoice, the Big Tech lobbying association that works primarily to court conservatives and push back on tech-skeptical Republicans, has worked with the Trump-allied communications firm Nahigian Strategies. Zuckerberg’s election-infrastructure contributions even got a boost from Brian Baker, who has close ties to prominent Republican donors. For now, though, the companies’ relationships with Republicans don’t help them with the party in control of Congress and the White House. The ties between Democratic firms and Big Tech reflect a greater tension between the message of the lawmakers and the corporations that the consultants work with. Democrats are expected to suffer losses in Congress in the midterm elections, however, and the GOP is beginning to outline its own anti-tech agenda. Soon enough, the Democratic firms may have to make do with less corporate work and more campaigns. Issie Lapowsky contributed reporting.

CrowdStrike Web Traffic

Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

CrowdStrike Rank

  • When was CrowdStrike founded?

    CrowdStrike was founded in 2011.

  • Where is CrowdStrike's headquarters?

    CrowdStrike's headquarters is located at 150 Mathilda Place, Sunnyvale.

  • What is CrowdStrike's latest funding round?

    CrowdStrike's latest funding round is IPO.

  • How much did CrowdStrike raise?

    CrowdStrike raised a total of $481M.

  • Who are the investors of CrowdStrike?

    Investors of CrowdStrike include Accel, CapitalG, March Capital Partners, General Atlantic, Institutional Venture Partners and 6 more.

  • Who are CrowdStrike's competitors?

    Competitors of CrowdStrike include Laminar, Source Defense, Mandiant, eSentire, Lacework, Red Canary, ActZero, Cybereason, Virsec Systems, Tanium and 14 more.

You May Also Like

Cybereason Logo

Cybereason develops software that aims to better track the actions of would-be cyber attackers. The Cybereason automated platform collects subtle clues by learning to discern anomalies and distinguish between the benign and pernicious. This data is then analyzed using Big data algorithms and proprietary knowledge enriched with external intelligence.

BlueVoyant Logo

BlueVoyant is a cybersecurity company that provides advanced threat intelligence, managed security and cyber forensics and incident response.

CounterTack Logo

CounterTack+GoSecure is a provider of Predictive Endpoint Detection and Response, Next Gen Antivirus and Insider Threat Detection, which meets Gartner's updated definition for Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) for the enterprise. The Platform delivers multi-vector detection, prevention, and response by applying a unique combination of behavioral analysis, memory forensics, machine learning, and reputational techniques to counter advanced threats. Powered by the Platform, CounterTack+GoSecure also offers a full spectrum of managed cybersecurity services, integrating EDR, SIEM, NextGen firewalls, IPS, vulnerability assessment and patch management. Its Advanced Response Centre (ARC) provides Threat Hunting, Active Threat Mitigation and Incident Response services.

Deep Instinct Logo
Deep Instinct

Deep Instinct applies a subset of artificial intelligence (AI), known as deep learning, to cybersecurity. The company has built a vast neural network that is trained on hundreds of millions of files. There are no human dependencies related to identifying and preventing cyber attacks. As a result, threats are detected >99% of the time, with a false positive rate <0.1%.

Source Defense Logo
Source Defense

Source Defense is a real-time SAAS solution that protects online websites from attacks originating from third-party scripts. It uses a real-time sandbox isolation technology to provide a client-side website security solution focused on preventing malicious activity originating from website supply chain vendors. The company was founded in 2014 and is based in Rosh-Ha’ayin, Israel.

Arctic Wolf Networks Logo
Arctic Wolf Networks

Arctic Wolf delivers personal, predictable protection from cybersecurity threats through an industry-leading security operations center (SOC)-as-a-service. Arctic Wolf Managed Detection and Response and Managed Risk services are anchored by the Arctic Wolf Concierge Security™ Team who provides custom threat hunting, alerting and reporting. Arctic Wolf’s purpose-built, cloud-based SOC-as-a-service offers 24x7 monitoring, risk management, threat detection, and response.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.