Of twelve competitive races called so far, the side favored by these PACs lost nine.
They spent $74.7 million on the losing side in those contests, versus $28.3 million on the winning side.
Nearly three-quarters of their money went to competitive races rather than safe seats.
The author of the analysis argues that much of the crypto PAC network Fairshake's leverage in Congress depends on lawmakers fearing it, and that they now have less reason to.
Other losses included Wisconsin's District 1, where Democrat Mitchell Berman unseated Bryan Steil, who chairs the House Financial Services digital assets subcommittee, after $1.9 million in crypto spending to support Steil.
Democrats also won Senate races in South Carolina, Michigan, Iowa, Texas, Maine and Kansas, and Alabama's District 2, against candidates backed by crypto or AI money.
There were some wins. In Nebraska, Republican Pete Ricketts, a Senate Banking Committee member, held his seat after Fairshake-linked groups spent $13.5 million against independent Dan Osborn. Results were mixed elsewhere: in Colorado's District 8, Democrat Manny Rutinel unseated Gabe Evans, a win tied to the Anthropic-backed AI safety faction, which reflects a split within the AI industry over regulation. Four races remain too close to call. The PACs are also expected to emphasize their record in safe races, where their picks have won 40 of 40 so far, and Fairshake had earlier touted winning 53 of 57 primary races. A longer postmortem is planned once more results are in.