Topic: If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine. (Read 1033 times)

Most of the people that jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon in the recent years are much more concerned about the price. So the idea is:

Trump wins => Price go up and stay up (see using Bitcoin to back US national reserves)

Kamala => Price goes down + unfavorable policies.

Bitcoin was created to be independent of government control providing a permissionless way to make transactions and that is what I came to love about Bitcoin when I first learnt about it. Even paypal wasn't allowing payments to my country but Bitcoin welcomed everyone.

I completely agree here.

In addition, if Bitcoin is close to an ideology then it's libertarianism/anarchism, and none of the big US parties are even close to these ideologies. Some say Trump is close to a libertarian ideology, but "libertarian" would also mean to open the borders to allow the free flow of human capital (Racism is actually one of the most anti-libertarian things that exist.) Some other things Libertarians like Rothbard advocated for are actually the opposite of what Republicans want, even Democrats are closer in some areas (e.g. pro-choice, or in general restrictions and prohibitions, with the exceptions of weapons ...). But Democrats are of course also far away from libertarian/anarchist principles.


The explanation for this behaviour is for sure the current actual user base, composed mainly by speculative investors. I'm sure the large majority of those who are supporting an US Bitcoin reserve like Trump has announced it, would love to cash out at let's say $500k and go away.

The optimist interpretation of that behavior is that it is a consequence of the strong growth of Bitcoin in recent years. Above all after 2020 I believe many were lured in by influencers promising then high returns, and some (those who invested in the correct moment) got what they had been promised, or they are close to get it, and thus they want more.

In this case, there's still a chance that each year some of these new investor groups fall down the rabbit hole, appreciating Bitcoin's original "values" and understand its unique value propositions, all related to concepts like censorship resistance. And that in the long term, we see a slow growth of "value-oriented" Bitcoiners.

Actually i find it weird how many people are hoping and praying that governments and leaders are doing the right things for it. It's like we are dependable on the government intervention, just to push the price to moon, and hell with the original idea of it.

And that why so many people don't seem to carem that we are now waiting price to be controlled by government blessing for it or banning it. I don't really have a solution or any scenario where it wouldn't be, and i accept this development, knowing full well that that means i don't in my core really believe in decentralization, but i thought that more people would be worried about this.

Bitcoin should be not depending on any of that as the very reason it exists is because it was supposed to be resilient against government intervention. And now we are counting on presidents to pump the price? What happened? Why people suddenly want to be dependable of such actions? Only thing i can see that we are being just greedy over the use cases it was originally designed for.

India and China are countries with populations of over 1 billion people, but why can't bitcoin and cryptocurrencies be popular there and why aren't they the paradise of the world's financial industry? Or why is every financial market in the world influenced and dominated by the US market? Although bitcoin is a global currency, it is not a wise idea to rely on population percentage to judge their importance to bitcoin.

For people to be able to invest in bitcoin, they need income, knowledge, awareness…and in terms of all these factors, the US outperforms the rest of the world. We cannot deny their influence and role in the world financial industry, not just bitcoin.

Very good points overall, but if we want to be honest, for this one, we shouldn't be looking at the share of the global population but rather at the share of the global economy, which, for the US is estimated to be at around 25% (of World's GDP).
A million people from third-world countries, who don't have $10 to spare, even if excited about Bitcoin, will not have as much impact on the price (and that's what most here care about the most) as 1,000 Americans earning $100k or above.

Of course, whoever wins the election, they play a big role in determining the direction of policy for the growth of major economic issues but the public wants to see who is more pro BTC and which candidate is less concerned which ultimately could lead to a downward trend in the price of BTC.

Honestly, I don't like the US in many ways but I don't deny that their influence is too big in every field in the world, Bitcoin is also one of them.
Bitcoin ETFs are the clearest example of this, why is the entire crypto industry only interested in Bitcoin ETFs in the US when Bitcoin ETFs are already present in many other regions and countries? Look at the amount of money flowing into the market from US investors every day compared to other markets and we will see a huge difference, we cannot deny that. They are the number 1 power in the world, they are still the ones who decide the fate of the world economy, let alone a small market like bitcoin can escape their influence.

Don't underestimate their influence and luckily they didn't ban bitcoin in the early days. Otherwise, we would never have seen bitcoin grow to the extent it has today.

Nowadays, banning bitcoin has become an impossible task no matter who becomes president but they can limit its growth with policies that prevent people from investing in it.

I highly agree, that many countries are stereotyping what the United States is doing, may it be the internal policy, foreign policy, or the relation with other country.  So, I also think that once the US bans Bitcoin, its alliance country will soon follow through.

But I do not think that Kamala will go beyond the ordinary means and ban Bitcoin totally. She might probably put regulations and laws that will benefit the United States on Bitcoin because her financial adviser will surely tell her that US will be missing out on a great opportunity if they totally ban Bitcoin.

Do not forget that the United States has larger influence on Bitcoin that the other countries. It may look like Bitcoin could excel without the support of the United States but do not forget that once the US put a ban in Bitcoin, it will continue by other NATO countries which might do the same influencing them that Bitcoin is not safe to hold or to be supported by the government. Harris might have to consider the crypto space with time if eventually she wins but the support might not be compared to what we could see if Donald Trump eventually wins. We all hope for the best outcome that would support the existence of cryptocurrency from either of the two candidates.

The 500 banknote ban was a relatively minor change. A massive centralization of payment methods to a single digital currency would be a move the EU or any other democratic state/currency area would not survive probably. Not only they would drastically harm the domestic banking sector but also probably political forces seeking to preserve cash and other methods would gain prominence. Perhaps it would even popularize cryptocurrencies even more.

My point is however another one. Of course an authority can misbehave. But an introduction of a CBDC can be done in a way it could be even positive for citizens, at least if you don't believe in an ultra-maximalist scenario where fiat would collapse and everybody only use Bitcoin for everything.

The Venezuelan Petro was originally conceived by an independent programmer. His idea was to create a blockchain-based and decentralized digital currency, very much like Bitcoin, and the government intervention would only consist in providing a pegging mechanism with oil-based derivatives, but no control over validation. Basically, it would have been a "government-backed Tether".

But as we know the Venezuelan authorities didn't want this to happen this way and wanted more control. So they created a totally centralized system which failed miserably.

If Maduro's regime wasn't so stubbornly authoritarian and "control-freak-y" they could have prevented the failure and perhaps would be even popular now.


That may be the case but people simply are using the e-CNY much less than predicted.

Source: MIT technology review.

It is officially still in the "testing" stage so the current situation may be misleading, but it seems there is no clear path to acceptance, even in an authoritarian country like China. In a democracy like the US with strong constitutional guarantees I see even less chances to "enforce" the use of a CBDC.

The only thing that can guarantee a negative impact on the value of Bitcoin is a new stranglehold on it by the new president.
Other political events will have no impact, as the value of bitcoin is a completely speculative indicator.
It can be influenced by not very many events from the real world, such as the rise in the value of the dollar or gold, everything else will not be able to noticeably affect it

This is what the ECB is communicating at the moment, but it is not excluded that at some point they will change their mind and switch completely to the digital euro. When you look at some decisions of EU bureaucrats, then nothing should surprise you - for example, when they decided to ban the 500 EUR banknote because, according to them, it was used by terrorists, and that later turned out to be real nonsense.


I think that the term "voluntarily" in China should be looked at from a different angle, because when the CP says that something should be used, then they actually think that you should use it, because otherwise you are showing that you think you are smarter than the CP, and that is not nothing positive for personal health. China wants as many people as possible to start using CBDC as soon as possible because it is part of their strategy of absolute control.

This depends on how the digital dollar is implemented. If CBDCs were mandatory for every citizen and not only cash but also bank transfers and other payment solutions would be banned, then you would be right. But I consider this extremely unlikely. This would harm the banking sector strongly: they would have to shrink their business model basically to credit/risk management and speculation. And cash will probably also not be banned because this measure would be too unpopular.

That's why for example in the EU the "digital euro" (it is not decided still if it will be implemented but there is investigation ongoing) is meant simply as a central-bank controlled additional "account" citizens can use if they want, but aren't forced to use.

I read however that in Nigeria for example the case was different and the government wanted really to enforce the CBDC by restricting cryptos in parallel (the ban, which was limited to financial institutions, was lifted in early 2024 though). But Nigeria is a much more authoritarian country than the US. And even in China, which is even more authoritarian, CBDC usage is voluntary and seems even to be relatively unpopular.

Thus also Bitcoin would not be affected per se by a CBDC, only if its introduction was done like in Nigeria with parallel restrictions for cryptos.

The US population is really only 4 percent of the world's population.

However, the US is a superpower, and the US dollar is the world's reserve currency. The US power is backed by its aircraft carriers, intellectual property, universities, and influential corporations.

The US seeks to control all global financial flows. If even one American suffers financially anywhere, the US will pursue the perpetrators in any jurisdiction on our planet.

If the US really wants to destroy Bitcoin, it will be a huge blow to the first cryptocurrency...

Here, in my opinion, we also need to take into account that most mining and cryptocurrency companies are currently located in the US.

At the same time, we do not know what actions Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will take regarding Bitcoin after their election as US president. Pre-election rhetoric is one thing, but real actions after the presidential elections are quite another ...

I like the point you brought out about the US being only 4% of the world population, that's a good one!!
With or without the west, bitcoin shall live on and it won't stop for anyone and for all we know. And  Bitcoin being a new technology of tomorrow, I don't think the US would want to be left out of this party if at all it wants to remain the super power it is...so should Kamala or anybody else get to be POTUS bitcoin is in safe hand's, thats for sure!

Either Trump or Kamala wins the result might still go the same. Since so far both of them is not really friendly towards bitcoin. They are just using this to gather attention but later on they provably dump those promises they made.

Although in case of Kamala they don't talk much about bitcoin so there's huge chance that they would rather push the CBDC rather than bitcoin since for so many years their party is not so friendly with those coins and its expected that they push their personal interest rather than those things that can bother them.

So again let see what will happen under their term if they allow bitcoin or put another restriction on bitcoin.

I don't like Donald for a number of reasons but I will not say my vote will go to Kamala just because I don't like Donald, even if his winning will pump the market (there is a big if here). I don't know much about Kamala, but she should be talking about crypto and what her policies and roadmap for crypto is going to be. Once she shares her future plans for crypto,, then I will support Kamala oh I forgot I can't vote haha.

Donald speaks for different sides, he is not a man of words I think I mean he agrees with the ban of gun and on the other side he is saying to the opposite people that he will not lose the law. Same in front of people who care for Palestine he is promising to help them and on the other side people don't like the Palestine situation, he is promising to help Israel. I mean who does that.

There is an opinion that the Democrats led by Kamala Harris are active supporters of the promotion of the digital dollar (CBDC). At the same time, the digital dollar is a concept that implies complete control over the financial flows of citizens and organizations.

In fact, this is a concept of building a digital concentration camp on the territory of the country.

The concept of the US digital dollar is essentially antagonistic to the concept of Bitcoin (as a decentralized universal protocol for transferring value in the virtual space).

If this is so, then even if Kamala Harris verbally supports Bitcoin, in fact, after her election, she will in every possible way hinder its free development.

It's even possible if Trump wins that despite a friendly crypto policy, things turn out bearish or harmful for Bitcoin due to bad decisions in other fields of politics.

An example could be international tensions intensifying because of bad decisions in foreign policy, may it be in the Middle East or regarding Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Or in general protectionist measures leading to a commercial conflict, above all with China.

International tensions have often led to significant Bitcoin dips, even in recent times. The reason is actually quite simple: if the world looks unsafe and unpredictable, you won't be so much interested in a risk asset investment. It's even possible that the Ukraine war intensified the 2022 bear market due to this effect.

That's of course only a possibility. It can also turn out that a possible Trump tenure becomes bullish for Bitcoin even if such bad decisions create damage to the US and/or the world's economy. It's not impossible that people will view Bitcoin increasingly as a gold alternative as its success doesn't depend that much on economic activity as stocks and other traditional assets. However, we currently seem to be far away from that outcome, a downturn on major markets still often influences Bitcoin's price negatively like we saw in the August Nikkei-induced dip.

In my country political bots are also a rampant problem, regardless the political party (there was a government change in 2023), all governments in charge since 2012/13 or so, and also several opposition parties, invested a lot in bots, above all on X/Twitter.

It could of course be the case that such bots could intensify FOMO in the Bitcoin community in the case Trump wins, and thus the price can indeed jump to the upside. However, if no substantial policy changes which benefit Bitcoin adoption occur afterwards, then this jump probably will be short-lived.

Probably those who said that Bitcoin will fall to $30,000 are those anti-Bitcoin or at least the ones who are following Peter Schiff all the way.
Bitcoin will fall to $30,000... only after the bull market. It will only touch that price when we enter the bear market.

Those are completely baseless prediction and Bitcoin will be fine like what the OP said. I mean Biden, who is against cryptocurrency didn't have that much effect towards the price, and adoption of Bitcoin. In fact, we've seen ETF's being approved during his administration. As for Trump or Harris, Bitcoin don't need the two of them as much as the two of them needs Bitcoin in order for them to win in the presidential election. Bitcoin will be just fine no matter who wins in the election. The US might be a superpower, but they have little effect when it comes to Bitcoin and it's price.

Bitcoin will thrive like it always be.