Topic: If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine. - page 6. (Read 2149 times)

I'd also add:

5) Some things are bigger than Bitcoin.  A power-crazed and senile convicted felon in charge of the nukes does not bode well for global stability.  Trump would greatly destabilise international affairs as he becomes increasingly unhinged and tyrannical.  He exhibits all the signs of becoming a despot, but Trump supporters are completely blind to it.

I indeed fear Elizabeth Warren more than Kamala because of doomsday plan for crypto but it isn't good and nice of Kamala for not saying a word about Crypto, I do feel unease about it because I have people in the US that are crypto pros, I don't want Kamala there because of people in the US not because of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin will be fine either ways but what about those that relies heavily on Bitcoin mining in the US? Crypto companies that can't cope are leaving the country, but some miners can't afford to leave the country for another.

I am still wondering what people are expecting of Kamala when she is the present vice president of the United States, she and Joe are in power and they did nothing, so what will she do once she takes over? I think nothing, Trump is right after all, those allegations on Joe's administration are all true.

Anyways, Bitcoin will be fine.

It is likely that the price of bitcoin will not be affected if Kamala Harris becomes President in the US. Bitcoin has spread throughout the world in every country there must be many people who store Bitcoin or trade cryptocurrencies, so if Kamala Harris wins this election it will not affect the price of Bitcoin or Altcoin. On the other hand, Trump is very supportive of cryptocurrencies so I am sure that if Trump is elected President in America then the price of Bitcoin and Altcoin will experience a very high increase.

Bitcoin's rise or fall largely depends on market demand but that doesn't mean the election results or who becomes president won't affect it. The president can issue bills, regulations or bans...which will more or less impact the market, so the election results will also impact the market.

I also believe that no one can stop bitcoin because it is too late to do so but their policies will have an impact on the growth of bitcoin in the long run. Let's not look back and be complacent in thinking that bitcoin can grow without any regard for governments and what they do. Things are changing, it's getting more attention and policies that target it directly will have a significant impact on it. They don't ignore it like they used to.

This gives an insight into how results in the US election will form Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency market. Although Biden's administration is just a little reluctant towards encryption, so far, so good, the Bitcoin is in the boom. Even during such critical events like giving approval to ETFs of Bitcoin and Ethereum, it proves that the growth and strength of Bitcoin are independent of US politics. US remains the top player in the crypto space, which, with high infrastructure and rates of adoption, proves itself as an at-vanguard. Such momentum alone, however, does not determine Bitcoin's fate. The regulatory probe by the SEC impacts altcoins and DeFi projects more than Bitcoin itself, as Bitcoin is somehow more stable and stable. Apart from this, the international nature of Bitcoin suggests that its value and adoption hinge upon many global issues outside U.S. politics, hence the idea that the price of Bitcoin could plummet in case Kamala Harris wins the presidency. It seems to add up the international appeal of Bitcoin and its ability to improve independently of specific U.S. political events.



In fact Bitcoin's unmatched flexibility means that its price movements are influenced by many factors that includes political results. Meanwhile Trump's victory may temporarily slow Bitcoin prices and this is due to his strong belief in supporting cryptocurrencies. Yet, the influence is not supposed to be short-term and market sentiment-driven but instead long-term fundamentals-based.

In the event Kamala Harris wins the election, there will be no price drop in Bitcoin as correctly noted by you. The strength and stability of Bitcoin are rooted in the general global adoption. The technological development and market changes rather than through any politician. It is the complex interplay of factors from around the globe which decides the value of Bitcoin and just remains firm and stable, regardless of who leads the world politically. This will result from the influence of one individual : whether that happens to be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. Of course, is unlikely to have a material impact on the long-run performance of Bitcoin.

Much more importantly, if Harris wins America will be fine. Definitely can't say the same if the criminal wins.

I partly share this concern, however, I think the "crypto is dubious" belief is unfortunately quite popular already.  Outside of our crypto bubble, of course. And I don't think it's because politicians used anti-crypto slogans in their campaigns. Imo it's mainly a mix of those who are skeptic towards anything new and shiny, the anger about a missed opportunity (not having held Bitcoin since 2011 or so), and bad experiences (see below).

However till now there are no indications that Harris could join this "anti-crypto club".

I believe Terra/Luna at least did some collateral damage to Bitcoin. First, because they sold so many coins they had held to back their shitcoin, that the 2022 bear market was heavily amplified. But second, because altcoins like Terra were attracting many retail investors who suffered heavy losses after their collapse and got disappointed of the whole crypto sector. And the FTX debacle, responsible for the first crash under an old all time high (~$20000), showed that some oversight and regulation for exchanges (those of that sizes at least) is probably not a bad idea.

Both cases probably caused, in part, the relative reluctance of retail investors to join Bitcoin again in its current bull run. And contributed, too, to the bad image the crypto sector got - together with the ICO scam wave of 2017/18.

If we lived in an utopia I would love these business models to implode alone without any regulation being necessary, people learning their lessons and these business models simply drying out -- Bitcoin not being affected. But Ponzis exist for centuries now and people simply don't learn.

I do agree on you. Bitcoin will drop nor pump its price due to its high volatility, and not because of the result of US election. Although some analysts have predicted that Trump will create a big pump on bitcoin if ever he'll win the election, maybe just a minor effect and after the hype is gone, Trump won't never a big deal already to bitcoin.

However, if Harris will win, still bitcoin won't be drag to its bottom price. Bitcoin will always be fine, with or without Trump or Harris that are hyping bitcoin.

Some people say on forum saying bitcoin will be dropped to 30k usd if kamala wins and the price of bitcoin will be 90K usd if trump wins the election but in my opinion there will be no huge impact of that election to bitcoin price. As you said bitcoin will be fine irrespective of US election.

It is only people's speculation, there are also some media trying to compare between Trump and Harris perception on crypto. However, there is no valid information about it, most of them are juts like rumors. It is quite doubtful that Kamala Harris won't support crypto industry since it is very helpful for US citizen. There are many people in US involved in crypto, it will be a big disadvantage for Harris if he put himself on the opposite of crypto enthusiasts. US citizen who are involved in crypto, probably won't vote Harris.

Some media even told that Harris is getting friendlier with crypto industry. They believe Harris to make crypto future better in US. Well, it is just like a political war among media. They published any news that can support the party which paid the media. Honestly, it is difficult to trust the media recently, most of them aren't quite objective to inform anything.

Please take a look this news:
1. Kamala Harris Signals Interest in Friendlier Stance on Crypto: Bloomberg
2. BankThink Kamala Harris has an opportunity to make crypto better for consumers

If you look at what is happening, the government really influences bitcoin sentiment in my opinion, especially if it is the US, political policies will affect the view of how it will go in the future, whether we like it or not we have to watch even though we don't care who wins over the two candidates, the policies they might issue about crypto or most importantly Bitcoin are one of the things we need to consider.

I also don't care who wins because I am not a US citizen, but because it is related to bitcoin, it becomes more interesting, because Trump uses bitcoin as one of his campaign tools, but from Harris' side he has not given his views on Bitcoin, making it a double-edged sword that we cannot conclude yet, during Biden's time I think they are not tough on bitcoin or crypto, it's just that they discipline developers and business people in this industry.

Warren has a group of close followers who jump when she asks them to, like Sherman. I'm a bit worried of them repeating lies long enough for them to be imprinted in people's minds, especially if these lies are backed by president.

Personally I'm in the group that thinks cryptos need bitcoin, not the other way round. I couldn't care less if Ripple gets wiped out or not, but SEC winning against them could make people think that it's a matter of time before they attack bitcoin. Maybe not bitcoin itself since it's decentralized, but companies that try to use it, exchanges and miners. Therefore I'd rather see the SEC lose than win and eliminate some shitcoins from the space. The way I see it, bitcoin looks better when all these shitcoins scam and implode around it and it keeps going like nothing happened.

Most people in the crypto industry think Donald Trump will be the best option for cryptocurrencies. The reason is that he had spoken publicly about his plans for the sector. But Kamala Harris has said nothing about the sector. She had made no promise, so Harris might continue with Biden's policies or become more stringent. I also find Trump's policies on immigration, gun control and police reforms faulty. His constant distortion of facts makes him untrustworthy. I am not also comfortable with some of Kamala's policies but she is my fair option.

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).