Topic: If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine. - page 5. (Read 2149 times)

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.

It seems to me that if Trump won, the cryptocurrency market would be more relieved or less pressured by the government. While if Kamala Harris wins, the crypto market will be under more pressure from the government. But that doesn't mean we'll see radical changes like a bitcoin ban. In practice, not much will have changed since the time of bitcoin. It would be something like a continuation of Biden's stance on bitcoin. Seeing these latest articles:

Sep 11, 2024

Choke Point 2.0 is hurting Kamala Harris' 'crypto reset'

Sep 12, 2024

Crypto stocks recover from dip as polls say Harris won debate against Trump

Sep 13, 2024

Trump to launch World Liberty Financial crypto platform on Sept. 16


They show that I'm right. I already had this opinion before reading these articles. Now, I don't see Trump's ideas as being good in some points. Like his stance on the war in Ukraine, he's putting himself in a position that seems to support Russia. Honestly, that's not a good stance.

This is an indicator of how overrated the roles of candidates/presidents are on bitcoin. It seems you all forgot about the decentralization and independence of the BTC-network.

The dominance of the US with 4% of the world population owning bitcoinis due to the surplus of capital/money (thank you, endless printing press), allowing these investments to be "poured" into bitcoin. When people have little money, then what kind of purchase of bitcoin can we talk about?

This is pure speculation, rocking the boat of the cryptomarket and the influence of the US\Harris is overestimated. Since when did this start happening? If the world economy depends on the US economy, then now the cryptoeconomy is becoming dependent on the US?

I must say I like your disposition here, you are one of the few who thought outside the bracket and beyond the hype some bigots use which has clouded the thought and judgment of many. First, to me, Biden is not anti-crypto, no US president has been, what his administration does is regulate crypto and I see nothing wrong with that.

Also, Trump is not a messiah of crypto, someone who had condemned crypto in many cases in the past and doesn't even have a sizable amount to prove his true support for it suddenly becomes the advocate for it. Don't you think it's because of the election? He always looks for where and how to sell as a businessman, so he imbibes it now in politics, nothing less. But I don't know why people are not seeing this, more reason the crypto market refuses to react in his honour because the market is not gullible like most people.

However, if Trump becomes the US president today, he will change nothing this administration has done and will rather regulate crypto more, mark my word. I see no difference with when Harris becomes the US president, the exception is that Trump is only lousy and looking for all means to cause division and attract more supporters through the created and existing division at different sectors and works of life.

Donald Trump's supporters claim that if Donald Trump wins the election, Bitcoin will definitely go higher than ever. Kamala Harris supporters claim that if Kamala Harris wins the polls, Bitcoin will be in a better position than before.

Those of us who basically love Bitcoin basically want the candidate who basically loves Bitcoin to win the vote.

There is a local forum that's very popular in my country and people often discuss things, like on Bitcointalk. Will you believe if I say that the government invests lots of money and creates bots to spread the misinformation? They even pay people to post good about the government. Of course, that's done unofficially but that's a very known fact among users. Don't you think that there won't be a similar situation on Bitcointalk too? Modern politicians understand the power of the virtual world, it's a great place to gain the attention of people with fewer expenses.
I believe that Trump will have bots all over the internet and some of them might be on this forum too. There is a chance for Trump to gain some % of votes by promoting the fact that Bitcoin will rise if Trump becomes the president. In some families, kids might push parents to vote for Trump for this reason, some Bitcoin enthusiasts will vote for him to gain profit on their investments and etc...

I personally believe that Bitcoin will rise with or without Trump and Harris. If they don't ban it and don't set sanctions, then Bitcoin will do everything well on its own.

That in itself says enough about how much people understand what is happening in the world, because if they did, they wouldn't want someone with as many as 37 indictments to become the president - and psychiatrists, not politicians or ordinary people, could talk about the ideas he promotes. I'm not a big fan of KH, but I would always choose the lesser of two evils - regardless of whether the greater evil would be better for BTC (which I honestly doubt).

To be fair: Bitcoin is fine under Biden despite his unfriendly stance towards it. So if Harris is elected, there probably won't be too many challenges and difficulties for bitcoin even if she doesn't want to appear friendly to bitcoin. But if we had a pro-bitcoin president things would be much better.

Which candidate to vote for will be up to each person's choice because each person has different issues, not just bitcoin. So we should stop criticizing each other just because we have different choices and instead respect everyone's decisions.

There is no guarantee that Trump actually supports bitcoin, and there is no guarantee that Harris hates it and would seek to hinder its growth if elected. Because the election is not over yet and we still don't know what they will do after they are elected, everything is still a mystery. So no matter who we vote for, let's hope that if they win, they'll be more open to bitcoin.