Topic: Andrew Yang, a Pro-Bitcoin US Presidential Candidate Drops out of the Race (Read 291 times)

In my opinion, even though Andrew Yang was elected president of the United States, it would not bring much change to bitcoin in America.
As we know America has always been focused on tax collection, and bitcoin is decentralized so it cannot be controlled. That is why bitcoin
is difficult to be accepted by the American government, because bitcoin cannot be used to collect tax.And Andrew certainly can't decide
arbitrarily, even though the American president needs approval various parties. And surely it will be difficult, from the beginning I did
not expect too much.

You know Politics is Poison who knows what happened with him ?
The country where I live , people even would receive death threats forcing them to drop out , I don't know about US but I would say the market is pretty ugly.
What else would you expect from the county whose leader is a RACIST !
We don't know what happened but I do believe that people will look into this and individually do something to promote the bitcoins for good.

I believe you didn't understand. He dropped out of the race for the Democratic primaries, because he can't win to be the running presidential candidate for the Democrats. The real race didn't start for him yet, it's not about Trump.

Because, he understand that Donald TRUMP is going to WIN again!

I'm not one of Donald TRUMP fans but, i think if, there is any candidate who stand in a better position towards restructuring of American's and guarantee security of lives in and outside the UNited States that person should be D. TRUMP.

Especially, now that he choose to be going from church to another during his campaign.

Thanks
Soldierwitlittlefaith

Didn't you read?



Or maybe he's pro-Bitcoin Cash. Roger Ver might have gotten to him first, and told him everything about this shitcoin of his, "the real Bitcoin".

hahaha, I totally agree with you "the mouth of a politician who is campaigning is not good to believe".  until now I am still optimistic that his plan (UBI) to give citizens the US $ 1k / month will be realized.   Pro Bitcoin or not, I think Andrew Yang won't be able to influence Bitcoin.

He may not have the needed charisma to win the heart of the people. I respect him for being a pro-bitcoin. With or without the US president, bitcoin has come to stay and there is really nothing the world leaders can do about this, nothing even the US president. These people are first humans before been president.

He can be a big impact if he would have won the election. Anyway, let's just move on and continue to promote Bitcoin in our own way. I'm sure as of now, we can have the support of the other politicians who have a positive view of Bitcoin. On the other hand, Trump has already said that He is not unto it. let's just see if He lost the next election, let's hope that the one will take over his place, will be a cryptocurrency supporter like the Chinese president.

Last time I checked he was a big proponent of UBI, so it's good to see him go

Hahaha.

Plus OP, he never had the chance. Did you actually believe we would see a Chinese man become president of the United States? Not under the current situation, and not under Trump's watch.

Yang was not pro bitcoin, he was a populist trying to milk votes from every possible group.
He was talking about a UBI worth 1k per month per person yet he had no clue where those 3 trillion would come from, he was all promises, 16 yo age for voting, legalizing cannabis, making poker legal, medicare for everything but had no plans on how to do it.
All he knew was to tax companies!

Those guys are the ones that come with a program that will do wonders on paper and when they get the power everything is forgotten.


His mouth went ahead for a second, that what he needs, your votes.

Never trust a politician during his campaign.

Welp, hopefully Yang's platform on crypto will be carried along to whoever candidate he endorses, although I find that unlikely.
Sadly, the Democratic party didn't like him, so even having Yang as a running mate sounds like a no - no for any candidate. He already said he'd endorsse any democratic nominee, just after saying he'd only do so if they accepted UBI. I think Yang's crypto friendlyness is of much lower priority than his push for UBI, which he already appears to have backed out of to an extent.

However, even some more favorable regulation was passed on, it's my view that we shouldn't expect much. Currently federal legislators don't appear to know much about crypto. Too much authority resides with states and agencies, and each tries to claim more. I see it only as wishful thinking to believe that favorable federal legislation would be passed in the following presidential term. The landscape in the U.S. is too chaotic for such. It would take something making international news for such thing to happen. Usually when BTC is on the news it's not for setting a good precedent (see Silk Road for example).

Currently the U.S. is missing out on some ICO and Blockchain investment because companies interested about it would rather issue their unlicensed securities in an offshore other than deal with the chaotic regulatory landscape, but IMO, BTC sits in a more comfortable spot at the moment. Strictly speaking about BTC users ofc, more regulation could complicate some things more even if it tried to clarify things and be favorable to adjacent issues like tokens and VASPs. Sure it would provide more certainty but a user isn't necessarily very much concerned about that.

I would argue that clarity, especially about the tax code, would benefit us all. The way the IRS operates is to be as vague as possible -- for example, about pre-2018 like-kind exchanges or FBAR filing requirements -- then retroactively punish people for not knowing any better.

Also, Andrew Yang's framework for cryptocurrency regulation did include this:


That speaks volumes. The bills/laws he's referring to are really beneficial for taxpayers, consumers, VASPs, and token issuers -- which is also why I don't think we'll see federal legislation built around them.

I think that is not a problem, as get Happy code said,


As a presidential candidate, this is important especially before the election. It is fine but it is also sad since he is a supporter of what we also support, it could be one of the steps to popularize bitcoin and crypto currency more.

He may have been pro-bitcoin in the sense that he'd take donations in it, but he was anything but "pro" the sentiments behind bitcoin.  As a leftwing authoritarian statist, the goals of bitcoin taking power from the government entities and elites who control the world monetary system and who encourage an inflationary currency are the antithesis of bitcoin.  Likewise, he and his cohorts that he will support in the democrat primary are of the mindset of wanting to know everything that everyone does and so would be at odds with any privacy protections coming to cryptos.  And don't forget the UBI, insanity if you care about freedom.

Bitcoin is anti-elites and not inflationary at all eventually and beginning in May, even less inflationary that now.  It is decentralized instead of centralized like the policies that he espouses and it is incompatible with a centralized, all-controlling government which he advocates.

So while it is always too bad when someone who is somewhat pro-bitcoin even if only accepting donations in it, is out, his philosophy would have been completely at odds, diametrically opposed to bitcoin's uses if he had been elected.

There are people who are pro-bitcoin from a philosophical standpoint, such as Ron Paul or Rand Paul, plus much of the House Freedom caucus, but likewise there are plenty of people in DC who hate everything that bitcoin could accomplish because it will impact their power and consequently the amount of money they can make selling that power.

Whatever. Bitcoin and crypto are such small issues compared to other problems that exist in the US, that I somehow get a feeling that it doesn't matter much who will win from the point of view of Bitcoin enthusiasts. Take Trump for example, he was hyped as almost Bitcoin supporter, and then he tweeted against crypto because some of his advisors told him so. Any of the presidential candidates has capacity to both support or oppose Bitcoin, and no one can say what will they choose later. Or maybe they will just keep ignoring it.

Andrew Yang was not pro-bitcoin. He was experienced on cryptocurrency but not very liberal. His proposal was to make regulation clear and universal across the U.S. so enterprises would be more likely to invest. One coud argue that no-regulation is better for bitcoin rather than federal level regulation. Yang had said nothing about bitcoin receiving favorable regulation however. As a matter of fact, his tax against automation to fund the UBI might have targeted bitcoin firms over taking banking sector jobs.

Anyway, Yang has said in his latest statements that he would support whoever the democratic candidate would be. In my opinion, other democratic candidates have policies that would indirectly hurt bitcoin. Higher taxes and higher corporate tax for example, decreases the propensity of people to trade in BTC from their income, or any venture to be started. Especially Biden. I've posted more details about which candidate I think is the lesser evil here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-us-presidential-candidate-is-the-lesser-evil-for-btc-5202869

If I'm not mistaken, people are saying that Donald Trump is pro crypto when he made his way to the Presidency because he surrounded himself with lots of pro crypto that time. However, we all know that somehow, it's so called pro stance on crypto are lost along the way.

Andrew Yang's battle cry is that he is a mathematician and of course he is a proponent of crypto, but I doubt that he will remain like that specially if ever he won. He might have to implement clearer regulations or adopt blockchain (which the US is already doing).

I've never heard of this guy, but maybe it's because I am not from the US and don't follow its political situation closely. You're saying he can succeed in clean politics, but is there such a thing as clean politics? I hope that being honest, smart and helpful will be something that gets a person elected, but the experience shows otherwise. I read a bit about him, and he seems like a good person, so it's sad that he's out. Let's see if anyone who's left is pro-Bitcoin. Bloomberg and Klobuchar are rather against, Biden, Weld, and Patrick are unclear (no evidence for or against); for Buttigieg, Steyer and Tulsi Bitcoin is a commodity, Sanders is rather supportive (which is good!), Warren is hard to tell. Yeah, the prospects are not very good...

Let's say Andrew Yang really is a Pro-Bitcoin. But let me tell you this, once he won the election (as if he ran and won and did quit), that is the time Andrew Yang must focus on the country's currency instead of Bitcoin. As a president, your role is to make your nation get well. Bitcoin is definitely threaded to the US Government as Bitcoin could definitely decrease the Taxes the citizens are paying for the government. Just imagine yourself as a President, what would you choose to support? Your country's economic growth? Or a cryptocurrency?