Topic: If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine. - page 6. (Read 1909 times)

We are coming from 4 years of US government extremely against the cryptocurrencies, and the SEC received clear orders to make it difficult for everyone and yet we saw bitcoin doing several new ATH and we even got the BTC and ETH ETFs approved. I don't see what else could Harris do at this point, of course she'll keep being against cryptos but who cares? It was already too late to stop cryptos 4 years ago, it's too late now, nothing changed. I don't care who wins (I really despise both candidates) and bitcoin won't care either, as usual.

There many people who try to draw a correlation between bitcoin and the US elections. Is there going to be a positive, negative, or no correlation at all is the discussion. And why I like to think that the US election and its outcome is a big deal not just for bitcoin but for the world at large, I can't seem to shake the thought away that there is going to be some correlation. Whether it is positive or negative, that I do not know of but I can say it is not going to be neutral. Both parties have been talking big about bitcoin and there are folks from the community who are supporters of the candidates. Some have even gone as far as to make donations in bitcoin in a bid to court their graces should any one of them win. In the end those irrespective of the direction that bitcoin goes, we all will be fine.

Here again, are the thoughts of a politician with a political view from a political stance, concerning a subject of interest that caters for the macro economy of an individual, rather than the micro economy of the country and its government.

I don't like when cryptocurrency mostly Bitcoin, is used as the focal point for a personal political ambition because it could lead to more consequences for the cryptocurrency market, if things don't go as planned after the results of the election is announced.

Well, let's just call a spade a spade and agree that Trump only needs the vote from cryptocurrency investors and even if he were to win and show support to the cryptocurrency community, the policies he may enact may favour his government portfolio more than that of the investors, and it can't be compared to how things are right now, because we would see and know the difference once prices rise or fall, policies change and if newer  innovative opportunities arise and take a centre stage as a contributory effort from the crypto world.

Gensler applies Howey test very arbitrarily and subjectively in his own ways and I would like to say Gensler, not SEC. as SEC. under this term, is centralized to his power till recent months when he got pressure to change.

According to arbitrary interpretation and application of Howey test, I read that people analyzed that this way, almost everything will be consider as security, even watches. It is bad management from SEC. under Gensler time and I hope that his time in SEC. will end soon. and this SEC. will have a new chairman who will be more accurately in applying Acts, Laws and Legislations that are existing to serve citizens, not to play these cards against citizens.

I don't agree with many actions the SEC did under Gensler (for example, their recent Wells notice against OpenSea seems ridiculous), but most of their actions targeted two things as far as I remember:

1) Altcoins which ring a lot of Howey test "bells" because they are totally centralized and utilized to raise money for a business, like any security. Ripple is a good example actually, a permissioned blockchain managed in completely centralized fashion by a business very closely tied to the banking sector. Uniswap is another similar case, a "decentralized" service run in a completely centralized (but obfuscated) way.

2) Exchanges offering "staking" and similar services. In many cases this was not simply that they simply distributed the PoS rewards when they staked altcoins. Many did also offer Bitcoin "staking" models under the same name, which is grossly misleading as Bitcoin obviously does not offer any mechanism similar to PoS. So the "rewards" came from another activities -- new users perhaps?

What's the benefit for Bitcoin if these -- in my opinion, at least borderline shady -- business models are getting approval by any authority of any country? Isn't it more a risk if these business models can thrive, luring people into Ponzi-like "coins" and "services", only to then collapse, and make a lot of people lose money?

Some say that "Bitcoin will be well if the crypto sector is doing well". But I believe if we got rid at least of a part of these shady services which were targeted by the SEC the crypto sector could be more healthy.

I also don't believe that targeting cryptos is "Democrats' goal". AFAIK there are a lot of pro-crypto personalities in this party, like Shapiro, while there are others with strongly anti-crypto stances like Warren. It's a big tent party so this is to be expected. If Warren was the presidential candidate I perhaps would be more skeptical.

Trump effect will be positive for Bitcoin, but on short run and only due to hype purposes, because investors are excited about the possibility of having the president of the most influent nation in the world as a Bitcoin supporter and enthusiast.

However, as soon as reality knocks the door, investors will realize Trump won't be so friendly to Bitcoin. After all, he will meet the expectations of the establishment where he is inserted and which is essential for his government to exist.

And as we know, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin goes on the exactly opposite route of governments' policies. I risk saying Trump wouldn't do anything for Bitcoin and its enthusiasts. Therefore, Bitcoin needs another reasons to survive and thrive, instead of putting all its expectations on a politician.

Now I think about it, OP is obviously right. I don't know much about the US elections but my stance has been on Trump and  my bias is actually simple: Trump is good for Crypto. Kamala is bad for crypto. I listened to too much shenanigans and probably got too excited when Trump got to speak at the Bitcoin conference in Nashvile back in July or August (can't remember but should be around that time).

Bitcoin will still be here when the elections are over. I think the only thing that changes is that there might or may not be crypto friendly policies. I think that's the biggest incentive that crypto natives are hoping to get out of the elections should trump win because Trump winning would mean price go up (if he manages to do what he promised).

Bitcoin will be fine with either Trump or Kamala in charge as a President.

Let's make it viral to prevent Kamala Harris gets votes and becomes a next President.

If Kamala gets elected, "Bitcoin will be grown up a middle class kid..." ya know. It's what Kamala repeatedly answered about any question about her plans on economy and by repeating the non-sense answer, she shown that she has no plan, even no concept of plan for economy.

But forget about her, she won't be able to kill Bitcoin or stop its growth.

Exactly. I think Americans are overplaying (as usual) their influence to the world. Yes, it is most likely that the market will be affected and certain regulations and policies implemented in the US regarding crypto may affect a lot of investors but to say that Harris winning will be the downfall of bitcoin is just silly and misleading.

Bitcoin should not have been involved in political wars in the first place and it seems like Trump’s team as well as his supporters are using crypto to motivate (more like scare) people into voting for him. Time and time again, I have mentioned that while Trump may have publicly supported bitcoin and crypto we don’t actually know if he will stay true to his words. Trump is not the only leader in the world. If he wins and does good by crypto then cheers to our American investors and crypto enthusiasts but don’t expect that bitcoin will reach new ath just because he was elected president. It won’t work like that.

Whoever wins, Bitcoin will be fine.

I agree, Bitcoin will be fine whether Trump or Kamala Harris wins, it may be better if Trump wins but it will not be worse if Kamala Harris wins. So there is no need for all these fears and exaggerations raised by some pessimists.

When Bitcoin was a weak child it continued to grow and flourish despite the intense hostility and rejection that it had at the beginning, so now that it has become a young man (so to speak) and has gained more momentum, strength and adoption, I do not expect it to be in a bad state at all.

I can't speak for the American voters but I think they care enough about immigration issues which are now associated with national security, rising cost of living, inflation, tax cuts, foreign wars and conflicts that the country is involved in, abortion, and so on and so forth.

Despite that, however, I guess most of us don't trust politicians and their false promises. Although we care about the key issues discussed, we're not expecting so much from them. We won't be surprised if the problems persist beyond their terms.


I honestly think they don't care about Bitcoin. They've grown rich and powerful with fiat, although they care about reaching out to all communities big and small to earn votes and win.

While I agree that many voters mostly care about themselves, I don't think many would vote for Trump solely because of his Bitcoin stance. That he claims to be a Bitcoin supporter may be a big factor to some but I don't think it's the only factor. In which case, I won't be surprised if there are Bitcoin supporters who don't even vote for him.

I totally agree with you. People are often misled by news outlets, believing that if Harris wins, she won’t do anything positive for the crypto industry. Many think Operation Choke Point was initiated by Biden, and since Harris is part of his administration, they assume she won’t address it. However, Harris might not have the power to act on these issues yet, especially since Biden has withdrawn from the presidential race. Consequently, people might think Kamala will be competing against Trump from Biden’s side.

Personally, I believe Harris could make positive contributions to the crypto field. I also prefer her to win over Trump for various reasons, though I understand this is a personal opinion and not a question you asked. I’m not a U.S. citizen and don’t have a vote, but I find Trump’s statements and actions to be somewhat exaggerated and doubt he will fulfill many of his promises. Apologies if this offends any supporters, it’s merely an observation, not a personal attack. Let’s wait and see how things unfold.

Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy has gotten the attention of crypto supporters since he has promised them a favourable regulations and Bitcoin reserve,also promise to remove SEC Chair Gray Gensler who is always criticize the Crypto Industry whereas Kamala Harris is set on resetting the crypto regulations which may not be good at all for crypto,it's obvious that she will be adopting Biden's stronger stance on crypto regulations.


https://coingape.com/crypto-political-donations-hit-190m-how-will-upcoming-elections-impact-industry/

It's not just any and any how elections, the US government election, and who occupies the presidential seat have always left a concern and debate of their influence on bitcoin; this should be because of them being among the countries with the largest economies. 
 
Nevertheless, it's just a matter of us knowing what we stand for and the kind of support we should give to Bitcoin. People just pay so much attention to things that will matter little to Bitcoin. Kamala might not even be a pain in the ass of bitcoin; it could just be a neutral ground.

Even Harris knows the amount of support bitcoin has in the US and the sway Black Rock and other ETF owners have in Congress. The ban is out of the question, but various limitations, especially for miners and private holders (KYC wallets) definitely are. Democrats know they can't simply ban bitcoin but they can make it as inconvenient to hold as possible and that's their goal.

Bitcoin itself will be fine if she wins, but ths simple fact that she wants to promote Gensler, who was instrumental in delaying bitcoin ETFs and threatening various exchanges and altcoin operators like Ripple is something to think about. Why Gensler, who was proven to be incompetent in Congress and grilled for losing in court inf not for the fact that he's well known for fighting cryptocurrencies? Same cryptocurrencies Trump has warmed up towards in the last few months?

You raise a fair point - we shouldn't assume Bitcoin will tank if Kamala wins just because Trump is friendly towards crypto.  Bitcoin has shown itself to be resilient no matter who's in power. 

While the US is an important player in the global crypto landscape, it is still only one piece of the pie and  bitcoin has spread far and wide around the world at this point.  Even if US policies shift, it likely wont spell doom for Bitcoin given its decentralized nature and broadening userbase. 

I suppose the bottom line is that Bitcoin seems capable of rolling with the political punches.  Its value lies in its permissionless and borderless qualities - qualities that no administration can easily undermine through regulation alone.  Bitcoin will likely keep on keeping on, regardless of what happens this November.

Bitcoin will continue to work as intended regardless of who wins the election in November. I don’t think there is any doubt though that the market will react more kindly in the short term if Trump wins. It’s public knowledge that he & the Republicans are vocally more positive about Bitcoin that the Democrats with Elizabeth Warren ‘and her goons.’

Even if the US was to ban mining (the Warren AML law project would be a "de facto" ban because it would simply not be fulfillable by miners) miners would simply rearrange in other countries. Some Chinese miners are said to be still active via VPN, even if mining is banned there. Technically Bitcoin would be fine after a few difficulty adjustments, just like in 2021 - 2021 was even worse than an US ban would be because the Chinese mining sector had more than 50% of the world's hashrate back then.

It could still have an impact as some US mining companies are now publicly traded, and their stocks going down the drain would for sure also pull the Bitcoin price down. However, as at least some of these companies are also selling other datacenter services (cloud, AI ...) they would not necessarily disappear. In general I'd expect consequences to be similar to the 2021 Chinese mining ban, i.e. a likely price drop but then normalization.

I've waited for this argument

My point here is actually that the US is a major part of the present of Bitcoin's adoption, but the future depends more on the development in other countries. The EU for example has only a slightly smaller economy than the US but the crypto penetration there is lower and has thus more possible upside.

Then we have of course developing countries like India, where the GDP grows way faster than in the US. India is actually an interesting case because according to estimations it has the most crypto users of all countries (90 million) but the Bitcoin sector is also being held back by high taxes and relatively strict regulations. And if China returns to a even slightly friendlier policy (e.g. allowing local exchanges again) that would also be much more impactful than any US government measure (besides of a complete ban perhaps, which I think would not be constitutional in the US).

I believe with "development" you mean its adoption? Because technical development is quite international already. And the US has strong enough guarantees in its constitution that open source programming cannot be punished (see also the Tornado Cash case, they had to find other reasons for the detention than just programming).

In terms of adoption, it is possible that a crypto-friendly government can help with that locally. But even in El Salvador adoption isn't much more widespread than in other Latin American countries. As I wrote in the OP already, the US has a quite high adoption already with 15-20% of the population having held crypto (not necessarily Bitcoin).

A complete US ban would indeed be quite a heavy hit. But I believe this to be impossible due to the US having quite good protections of basic human rights (free speech for example could be used as an argument against a crypto ban), even if the government or Congress was willing to ban it it wouldn't be easy. And the 50 million crypto holders are quite an argument to not even try it.

I get what you mean but I some what disagree.

While The United States alone will not put Bitcoin down on its knees, remember a lot of the largest Bitcoin businesses are running a lot of their stuff on the territory of the United States.  More over, a ton of Money is being allocated toward Cryptocurrencies over there and while they do not have God like powers, they can influence the entire world through even one single decision they make.

A leadership that is against Bitcoin could damage it for a while.  It can not be killed, but it can be scratched and healed.  China has changed their mind on banning or not banning Bitcoin so many times it is not even a surprise any more when they switch the flip again.  The United States has never had a very harsh or idiotic approach toward Bitcoin, so having that for the first time could change how things go for Bitcoin.

And remind me why people on Bitcointalk should care about dogeatcoin, memeoverkillcoin, pepelepepe coin?
One serious reason why any altcoin that gets pumped out of the you know what of their developer team should not be considered security when it fits every single detail of it, we complain all day long that the crypto world is full of rug pulls but god forbid we put some mechanism in places so shitshows that ended affecting even Bitcoin like the luna fiasco won't be possible anymore!


India has 12% but if we had the same news about crypto coming from the US we would be now cheering for $10000.
Population doesn't matter, even GDP is not a true indicator, 10000 people might have enough money for a bowl of rice a day while one guy making that much could afford to DCA $1000 a day, disposable income or total wealth should be more meaningful, and that's where the US has a 30% share of the world.


The influence is there, Bitcoin being banned in the US would mean backward 10 years, not counting the ripple effects.
But the thing is that is just fearmongering from the orange guy to get votes, unless you vote for me, it's the end of your crypto savings, nothing more.