Topic: [NEWS] Elizabeth Warren says she’s building an anti-crypto army in new campaign - page 3. (Read 718 times)

Right. That was not really what I was saying. Global economic pressure and stock market correlation sort of proves more and more that Bitcoin markets (and by proxy, crypto) can, in fact, be impacted.

All I was saying is the headline is not necessarily bad news for crypto users in general. I always say, what doesn't kill Bitcoin only makes it stronger...

not sure why people are mentioning SVB and signature failures in the same topics as crypto..

those banks failed due to mis-managing treasury bonds..
maybe warren should be trying to start a war on treasury bonds markets instead..

2008 was caused by mortgage derivatives
2022 was caused by treasury bonds

both are about debt being sold to other institutions at a mark down.
both are considered discounted debt notes

which can go bad if funds are needed to be pulled back. which happened in both cases

neither financial crises were due to crypto nor crypto users

According to this article, it is rumored and speculated that Senator Elizabeth Warren conspired with a trader Marc Cohodes to profit from the meltdown of Silvergate bank and Signature bank. This is certainly corruption and illegal if this is true. However, this will work for her anticrypto army campaign because she can blame the meltdown of those banks on the cryptospace hehehe.



Politics can make for strange bedfellows, and, according to a popular rumor in crypto circles, one of the stranger alliances involves progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a short-seller named Marc Cohodes who cashed in on the collapse of Silvergate and Signature banks. Cohodes is very active in Washington, D.C., where he shopped a research memo about the banks to numerous lawmakers and to agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

It’s a great story—if it’s true. And the evidence for that is not conclusive. When I called Cohodes, he did not deny that he had been in touch with Warren’s office but said he “talks to all sorts of people” and didn’t provide any specifics. He described himself as “just one guy” who has a track record of exposing fraudulent companies, and, in a later email, called the two banks “Publicly traded Crime Scenes.” Cohodes insists he has no opinion on crypto but only in calling attention to what he says was the banks’ complicity in money laundering. He did confirm he made money from holding short positions in both Signature and Silvergate when the banks collapsed.

Based on this, it’s hard to conclude that Warren and Cohodes are in cahoots—or even that they know each other. But if you want additional circumstantial evidence, you can perhaps find it in this New York Times article in which Cohodes is one of a tiny fraction of Wall Street types supporting Warren’s 2020 presidential run. And you can look at the fact that it’s a former Warren staffer who is behind a controversial class action lawsuit against a DeFi company—suggesting Warren’s team is happy to adopt a wide variety of tactics in its crusade against crypto.

Note also that a Politico headline this week said the senator is “building an anti-crypto army.” It’s not beyond the pale to imagine this army could include a short-seller.

Read in full https://content.fortune.com/newsletter/fortune-crypto/

I notice 'Alphabet' (Google) are one of her larger benefactors.  A company who just so happen to have a payment platform, Google Pay.  Perhaps they see Bitcoin as competition and are financially motivated to fund those who oppose it?

Elizabeth Warren is a washed politician with no leg to stand on, so she chooses to die on the hill of crypto regulation. She did run for President in 2020 -- her run accumulated in the evaporation in millions of dollars of campaign funds as she would drop out with hardly any votes.

She isn't popular any where outside of her jurisdiction, and I'd wager that her own constituency does not find her that favorable with her incumbency pushing her over the finish line every election cycle. Unless someone's prepared to primary her and has a lot of money on hand, she'll win reelection.


Warren isn't an overt socialist but she's close to it. She wants the federal government involved in all aspects of economic and currency regulation so it shouldn't come as a surprise that she thinks it's a great idea to force crypto companies to adhere to all sorts of governmental red tape. All her wackiness and she still gets reelected over and over again by her voters.

Obviously those who are convinced by her concept will vote for her.  Remember, America is not saturated by crypto enthusiast let alone only a small percentage of people have the same ideals like us at this moment.


Everything in the economy has a domino effect.  People are affected indirectly on whatever happened to the financial institution.  So we cannot 100% say that cryptocurrency have no effect on the lives of people that do not use them.  One sample is, if crypto dominates and banks shut down, people who are subscribed to those banks are greatly affected even though they do not use cryptocurrency.

Ah well are we forgetting that she can’t control public ledger by all herself? Do not be afraid since we are talking about virtual currencies which has the purpose of solving bypass procedure of fiat or traditional system. It’s simple, the whole blockchain was invented so that no single person or an entity would be able to control it rather the power is distributed through every person who joins the network. This means whether this lady create anti crypto squad or not, there is simply no possible way to control it anyways. That’s really funny though.

Whether she's building an anti army for Bitcoin or not, we don't care about that because there is no way she would do that and it will affect the flow of Bitcoin or the cryptocurrency. Let her organize her anti Bitcoin army and let's see how it will go. We don't need to bother ourselves about the market again because there is nothing again that can affect the Bitcoin market. If there will be any possible organization or army that can crash the cryptocurrency market then that would have happened before now maybe many years ago when Bitcoin price was still below a thousand dollars.

That's right and I tend to agree with this, whether it will win or not Warren's campaign will be successful in achieving its goals is yet to be seen.  So I don't care either because IMO, the crypto industry has grown rapidly in recent years and has a large following of supporters who see it as a legitimate form of investment and a way to promote financial freedom, not only in the States and it has been proven while China banning Bitcoin.

Who will be charged on a decentralized network?
It might Elizbeth thought, with this election campaign she will get many supporters and possibly be re-elected but in fact, only those people who didn't understand the Bitcoin network works.

When in doubt, follow the money.  It's probably "lobbying".  Someone (or several someones) with ties to traditional finance will likely be applying pressure for the senator to adopt this stance.

Seems like bad news on the front, but Bitcoin, Ethereum don't have anything to worry about. It's just the Coinbases and FTXs that do -- isn't that a good thing for most people who still leave their coins on services and use apps to "buy" Bitcoin?

Did Bitcoin suffer after the world's most populous country banned it? Did a single Chinese person suffer in their use of Bitcoin since 2013? Not from my experience! Sure, they can't easily use Binance, can't use Coinbase, but it's only helped spur P2P use there.

Let's hope she doesn't get voted in that election so there won't be a bill that's too strict about hindering the development of crypto in America. And let her continue to talk about the bad of crypto because maybe she doesn't understand crypto at all and what is the purpose of crypto for citizens. She should have realized that she was too old to join the ranks of Senators and left it to a younger candidate with a good vision and mission for the future of America. But human greed has made many people want to achieve more.

There is nothing to bother about, Elizabeth Warren and Janet Yellen strove few years back to issue the crypto bill yet it seemed irrelevant and it wasn't passed. Now she wants to use cryptocurrency as an electoral tool to lure people into her campaign of banning crypto to promote her. I don't see any negative effect this would have on cryptocurrency rather it'll yield positive result. No bad publicity, people who didn't know about crypto would know it through her, and definitely they'll research about it. Such, publicity could convert some people into cryptocurrency. However, Elizabeth Warren may not execute her plans if she gets there or she may not win the election.

Honestly, I really don't care who will and who won't vote for her, because she is totally irrelevant and it's a real shame that we give such people any exposure on this forum. If Bitcoin could survive without China, I'm sure it can survive without Massachusetts and a few other federal states.

---

Is the possession or purchase of firearms prohibited in the Massachusetts? As far as I managed to find online, it is allowed for everyone over the age of 15 who has a license -> https://www.mass.gov/info-details/gun-ownership-in-massachusetts

Furthermore, do you think it's normal that kids can own firearms without any problems and then go around killing people? I think that something is very, very poorly regulated in a country that has at least one mass murder every day...

Thank you very much for this very comment of yours. I was almost confused when I saw this post and the essence of the anti crypto campaign was not clear to me.
I was asking who'll support this kind of campaign and how would it profit the people of the state? I know United States as a state that loves Liberty which means people have the right to do whatever they wish to do at the confines of the law.

Mare looking at their campaign, you will understand that all the crypto enthusiasts will not support the said campaign and even people that arebnot into crypto my not be interested in the campaign. But as I have read that she was personally scammed in crypto. I now understood the reason for the campaign and maybe some people that were scammed using crypto and bitcoin as the payment gateway would also support the idea.

That is one of the disadvantages we have in cryptocurrency. Whenever a crime is concluded using cryptocurrency as a payment method it is assumed that the payment method was actually the scam.

Instead of a campaign that usually includes support for all elements, whether crypto lover or not, she should know how politics works well. But instead, she is drumming up war, so if he decides to go for an anti-crypto campaign it will only kill widespread public support. It doesn't matter what she says to draw people into the circle. Don't expect a campaign like this to be accepted, especially among young people who support him, she has planted hatred.

Or if it's decentralized, HOW will they force such a network to comply with anything? They either don't understand, or they're simply too stupid to understand. But we can't blame the older generation/boomers if they can't accept the fact when a new technological breakthrough is taking place. It was the same during the time when the automobile was invented, or the printing press, and many other inventions/discoveries.

Doesn't this Senator want to make their activities and income more transparent? It would be nice to see what's her source of money, who pays her, how much and when, where does she spend this money, etc, let's make everything public and 100% transparent for everyone. Oh, she won't like it, definitely not, and she will say that it's private and sensitive information, so is mine too, Mrs!
These people are either retard or don't want to understand the real problem, there are people who don't want to be their puppet, their source of information for marketing and when there is an exponential growth on demand of privacy, there will always be a supply. Restrictions are a band-aid on scar.

Well, this is not something new, as the history of Massachusetts represents its hostility against BTC and its decentralization. Why? That I do not know but back in 2017 Massachusetts showed its hostility to BTC but the number of BTC users was still increasing in that state. Like you can check the stats are telling truth, There are more than 800 registered BTC ATMs in the Bay State and there are more than 200 blockchain companies in that state which make it the 5th state in the most adoption of BTC list.

But the question is why this senator is against BTC and it's decentralization. i think when they declare war against BTC in 2017 (which i mentioned above) they said in that warning to users that As after this, FTX was the most famous token in Bay state but as Fall of FTX came this seems to look more true. But as we know BTC is BTC and others are alts if you will give space to other technologies and then ask BTC and its decentralization to halt then that's not fair.

Maybe, there could be other problems too in stopping BTC like, "Election is coming" she needs voters and using those who are against BTC/crypto or at least encouraging those too who lost in FTX. As back in 2022, she failed to implement that act but now she is again in the field. let's see what good comes from this back she made some ambiguity statements which proofs her wrong.

Well, what if she wins this time, just a curious question. then i think these companies have to leave doing business in the USA but that will affect the economy of the USA, as a great amount of tax is being gathered on crypto and the latest tax on NFTs will get them more money as many celebrities own millions of NFTs. But overall, i do not think so, it's going to happen.

There will be problem with crypto projects that claimed to be decentralized but the developers are well known, this is why I have been saying to some friend of mine that true decentralized projects should always have anonymous team and developers, I don't know why many developers failed ti follow the example of Satoshi Nakamoto, he knew that possibility of what could happen later in future, this is why he decided to never reveal who he is.