December 22, 2024, 02:32:51 AM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Other>Politics & Society

Pages:

Author

Topic: Pro-crypto Mark Cuban to replace Gensler if Harris wins (Read 583 times)

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: fuguebtc on October 11, 2024, 03:54:23 AM

We need regulatory clarity in our business, and we haven't gotten that under Gensler, no doubt. Although that is partially the fault of Congress (which is partially the fault of this area of business simply being brand new), that obviously falls on Gensler as well.

This is why I am hoping Harris wins, so we can get Mark Cuban in there...

fuguebtc

hero member

Activity: 1974

Merit: 539

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: legiteum on October 05, 2024, 10:07:10 AM

Quote from: fuguebtc on October 05, 2024, 12:48:27 AM

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4054708-sec-chair-gary-gensler-calls-bitcoin-highly-speculative-and-volatile

He called Bitcoin highly speculative and volatile? Good. That's exactly what any honest person should call it. Would you rather a government official act like a charlatan pumping a scam investment, saying you "can't lose money" on an investment that can (and has) go down significantly in value in the past?

My business is memecoins, and guess what: I don't lie to my customers. Investing in crypto is a risky endeavor and consumers should know that. People love to speculate and it's perfectly fine to do so if that's what they want, but nobody should lie to them and tell them its something it's not.

Criminals like SBF who lie to consumers are what ruin our industry and cause investors to flee. The more we can show average investors that the business is legal and stable and transparent, the more money we will all make.

Recently, SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda made the statement on Fox Business News. He said the SEC's policies and approach to the crypto industry over the years have been a complete disaster. As one of the commissioners of the SEC, but he has always expressed dissatisfaction with what the SEC chairman has done with the industry over the years.

As you can see, even people within the SEC are not happy with what Gary is doing with the crypto industry. Only you and some Democrats who don't want to admit that Biden's pick is bad for crypto are saying that what Gary is doing is protecting us.
Gary is probably just doing his job and following someone else's orders but clearly what he is doing is harming crypto.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/sec-commissioner-confesses-crypto-approach-has-fueled-disaster-whole-industry

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 1492

@legiteum. Similar to what I have mentioned before, these are only rumors and they were mentioned in different news articles. In any case, it would very much be a comedy if these candidates, Trump and Kamala, declare that they are procrypto and appoint Jamie Dimon or uncle Gary for the position of secretary of treasury heheheheh.

However, agreed on what you have said. Bitcoin pumped under the Biden administration and before this, I reckon that bitcoin also has pumped under the Trump administration. They can appoint anyone who might be anticrypto and bitcoin will always pump hehehe.

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: bbc.reporter on October 06, 2024, 09:56:45 PM

On Trump, this will be Jaime Dimon.

Why do we know that? How will Jamie Dimon help Trump make money?

Quote

On Kamala, this will be uncle Gary or grandma Warren.

This is partisan BS. There's absolutely no evidence either of those people will join the cabinet, and both don't even make logical sense on any level. But you're going to spread whatever lies you need to spread to get Trump elected, right?

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 1492

Quote from: legiteum on October 04, 2024, 10:24:11 PM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on October 04, 2024, 09:36:09 PM

However, I am not arguing or talking about where the price of bitcoin will go during the next administration because we can be quite certain that bitcoin can pump another 500% if Trump or Kamala will win heheheheh. I am arguing that we will know what the next administration's policy might be on the cryptospace depending on the next president's appointment for the next secretary of treasury.

On Trump, this will be Jaime Dimon. On Kamala, this will be uncle Gary or grandma Warren. There is only 1 month before the election hehehehhe. The appointments will be on December or January, I reckon.

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: fuguebtc on October 05, 2024, 12:48:27 AM

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4054708-sec-chair-gary-gensler-calls-bitcoin-highly-speculative-and-volatile

fuguebtc

hero member

Activity: 1974

Merit: 539

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: yhiaali3 on October 04, 2024, 11:38:13 PM

He has never been a bitcoin supporter, although bitcoin ETFs were approved during his tenure but the reason is because he was under so much pressure after years of delaying ETFs and he approved them reluctantly. I remember after the bitcoin ETFs were approved, he responded in an interview with CNBC: bitcoin was just a speculative currency, aimed at illegal activities, and he also sarcastically asked if anyone would buy a cup of coffee with bitcoin. It is clear that not only does he not consider bitcoin an asset or a commodity, he does not even consider it a method of payment. In his eyes, bitcoin or cryptocurrency is illegal.

Those who say he opposes crypto and centralized exchanges because they are too scammy but loves bitcoin are bigots who want to protect the Democratic Party. Because if the Biden administration didn't allow him to do that, Gensler certainly wouldn't be so aggressive.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4054708-sec-chair-gary-gensler-calls-bitcoin-highly-speculative-and-volatile

yhiaali3

legendary

Activity: 1848

Merit: 1982

Payment Gateway Allows Recurring Payments

Personally, I don’t like Gary Gensler and I think replacing him with someone else would be better for the industry, although some here argue that Gary Gensler is pro-Bitcoin but anti-bad coins, this may be true but he has managed things in the wrong way and according to the majority opinion, Gary Gensler has harmed the crypto industry as a whole.

As for Mark Cuban, I don’t know much about the man and I don’t know if he will be better than Gensler or not, we can only judge after seeing the results of his work, but regardless of the man who heads the SEC, we as users are concerned about this body doing its job well which is protecting users first and foremost and monitoring crypto companies’ compliance with regulations without stifling innovation.

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: bbc.reporter on October 04, 2024, 09:36:09 PM

How does the US Secretary of the Treasury have anything to do with the price if Bitcoin? Can you explain that? What specifically has the current one done to hurt Bitcoin* (*which went up 500% in the last four years)? This is some very weak tea, sir.

The story about Gensler going to Treasury is false and planted by Republicans. Congrats, you've been duped by a political apparatus from another country:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gary-gensler-treasury-secretary-story-172945081.html

Quote

Also, is grandma Warren also running for senate? She is also might be another candidate for secretary of treasury and she is very anticrypto.

Bitcoin went up infinity percent while Warren has been in office. Maybe it's a good thing for the price of Bitcoin that there are members of the US Congress trying to protect consumers from fraud? Maybe that creates an environment where consumers can safely invest, thus reducing the risk premium, and thus infinitely expanding the market?

Maybe your guy will win in November and you'll get to see what consumer investors think of a convicted criminal running crypto policy...

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 1492

@legiteum. Another government position that will be very important to speculate if an administration will be procrypto or anticrypto will be the secretary of treasury. If this will be uncle Gary as rumored, we can be quite certain that it will certainly be anticrypto. The secretary of treasury has the control on Fincen and other departments that can certainly be used against the cryptospace. There was also a similar rumor on Trump where he might appoint Jamie Dimon. This appointment will also certainly be anticrypto.

In any case, yes everyone should wait on who the winner on November chooses as his or her secretary of treasury. Also, is grandma Warren also running for senate? She is also might be another candidate for secretary of treasury and she is very anticrypto.

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: bbc.reporter on September 30, 2024, 08:28:02 PM

Heheheheh if Kamala Harris appoints this Mark Cuban as the chairman of the SEC this would certainly be very positive for decentralized finance or DeFi under American jurisdiction. Mark Cuban is very much a DeFi user and there was an occurrence on 2021 where there was a project that he shilled that might have been a rugpull hehehe. In any case on Mark Cuban, I approve!

Price volatility is the norm in crypto markets, but last week saw the price of decentralized finance (DeFi) project Iron Finance’s Titanium (TITAN) token plummeting — from US$64.19 to zero — in a single day.

Even American billionaire investor Mark Cuban — who had endorsed TITAN in a blog post just days before — was not left unscathed by the token’s crash, taking to Twitter to say “I got hit like everyone else. Crazy part is I got out, thought they were increasing their [total value locked] enough. Than Bam.”

Source https://forkast.news/iron-finances-defi-bank-run-why-mark-cuban-got-rekted/

Mark Cuban is a smart investor and smart investors get rekted occasionally when they make small, high-risk, high-gain investments: it's part of the game.

It's important that we have somebody like Cuban in Washington who can distinguish between high-risk investing and pure fraud. The former is something the government should allow and the latter is something the government should prosecute. When consumer investors feel safe about the investment platform (which is both the tech and the legal "platform" that ensures they are investing in what they thing they are investing in), then they invest... a LOT of their money in it. Conversely, when investors feel like the rug can get pulled out from under them from fraud, they hold back.

Digital assets can become mainstream investments and grow 10x from where they are now, but we need governments help us create that safe environment by stamping out fraud in every form. I think Cuban gets that.

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 1492

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: Smack That Ace on September 29, 2024, 10:57:02 PM

While the forum does not prohibit us from discussing politics or badmouthing others, this is a bitcoin forum and most people will be discussing bitcoin more than anything. But do you find yourself talking too much about politics and even constantly criticizing and badmouthing Trump in every topic even when the topic has nothing to do with him? Most of the threads are just discussing bitcoin and trump's statements about bitcoin, but do you see that you are dragging his private life, and his business into it and the sole purpose is just to humiliate him? That's why people get bored with your posts.

I don't know how divided your country is because of this election but trust me there is no division here because we support Bitcoin not Trump or Harris. Any controversy will soon disappear after the election is over regardless of who wins.

Insofar as Trump is a political leader, then his "personal life" as you call it is absolutely relevant to any discussion of him.

For instance, Trump is a convicted criminal. That is relevant to Bitcoin or any other policy Trump may offer as president.

Trump is going into the crypto business himself personally and going to compete with Bitcoin. That again is absolutely relevant to Bitcoin and the broader crypto business. We're not talking about his hair color or how many bimbos he's screwing here, we're talking about things that directly effect US policy if he were to be elected.

Trump is an avowed racist who is demonizing minorities across the USA now, making up stories about them and terrorizing communities of color. Attaching this "brand" to Bitcoin could relegate it to the dustbin of history.

Ukraine will be sent to their slaughter under Trump, who continues to blame Ukraine for Russia's invasion on Ukraine.

You can't advocate that Trump be president of the USA without being responsible for all of Trump's policies. If you advocate Trump, you have to advocate for the whole Trump, because everything a US president does and is impacts the financial markets, and thus impacts crypto.

I agree the topic will basically be dropped after the election, but for the next five weeks, well...

YUriy1991

sr. member

Activity: 882

Merit: 215

#SWGT CERTIK Audited

Quote from: Smack That Ace on September 29, 2024, 10:57:02 PM

I don't know how divided your country is because of this election but trust me there is no division here because we support Bitcoin not Trump or Harris. Any controversy will soon disappear after the election is over regardless of who wins.

Indeed, the connection with the upcoming presidential election has quite an influence on the market, whoever wins later, because all market players will also monitor the development of US economic signals whether they are in a good or bad position and whether the inflation rate can be controlled or not in the future so as not to trigger an economic recession.

For us bitcoin supporters, this is not an important and sacred issue because we also know that both are trying to get support from the crypto lover community. I personally focus more on this October because if I look at the Monthly Return table, BTC's movement is quite strong and many have been green for the past 11 years.

Smack That Ace

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1109

Free Free Palestine

Quote from: legiteum on September 28, 2024, 10:12:47 AM

Quote from: Smack That Ace on September 28, 2024, 05:38:05 AM

I also enjoy participating in discussions on election related topics as I believe this will more or less impact the future of bitcoin. But I'm also starting to get tired of seeing legiteum's posts because he doesn't care about anything but badmouthing Trump and telling people to vote for Harris.

There are certainly far more posts here praising Trump, defending Trump, and advocating Trump for president, but as a Trump supporter you probably don't notice them.

This is by far the most divisive presidential election in US history. You would have to find a pretty closed-off forum to find the pro-Trump echo chamber you seem to be seeking. Insofar as people are allowed to state both sides of the argument, there's going to be a lot of arguing until election day...

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 29, 2024, 11:18:39 AM

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 10:51:02 AM

Generally, if you defraud customers, you will go to prison.

Threatening me that I will go to prison if I mess with customers' money does not insure their money in case I do mess with them, or I get hacked.

Sure. Nothing does. But laws and governments reduce crime. The absence of these things would mean your neighbors would just come over to your house and kill you, and take your money. I'm really not seeing where you are going with this

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 10:51:02 AM

Michael Saylor won't crash his company out of some technical principle

Nor would he crash his own company by making a complete 180 and suddenly endorsing Trump's version of Bitcoin, which would only last as long as his presidency. Some forces are simply beyond control, even for a president.

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 10:51:02 AM

Sure. And they way you get universal consensus is to threaten people with prison if they don't comply. This tactic has been shown to work really really well in thousand of other realms

But not in this. This is not a favorable approach, even for someone as powerful as the president. For every action, there is an opposite reaction. In countries like China, the government has tried to force people away from Bitcoin, but the result was people opting out and shifting the opportunity elsewhere. (see mining in Texas.)

You can't escape a royal fork without some loss, and Bitcoin is a royal fork. Accept that things will fall apart if you meddle with them, and move on.

China never ordered Bitcoin miners and brokers, under threat of prison, to make changes to Bitcoin. And Bitcoin remains perfectly legal to hold and trade in China. Indeed, perhaps the only government that could, in opposition to all other world governments, get away with this would be the US.

Most Bitcoin is held in US accounts by US citizens. The US government ordering that to change would entail a simple act of Congress, and no serious Bitcoin holder would risk their holdings by defying the US government. Most people who hold Bitcoin these days are ordinary citizens (some of whom are extraordinarily rich) who simply enjoy having lots of money stored this way because they think it will go up in value. They aren't libertarian freedom fighters willing to risk their life savings (and even their lives) for some kind of technical cause.

Again, I'm not predicting any of this will happen in the short run (although I've said elsewhere that now that Trump is competing directly with Bitcoin this is very dangerous if he wins), but it's certainly all very possible and even plausible.

Bitcoin is not magic, it's just software--software written by mortal humans.

Anyhow, back to the main topic: I'll sure trust Mark Cuban to protect Bitcoin over anybody Trump hires

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 10:51:02 AM

Generally, if you defraud customers, you will go to prison.

Threatening me that I will go to prison if I mess with customers' money does not insure their money in case I do mess with them, or I get hacked.

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 10:51:02 AM

Michael Saylor won't crash his company out of some technical principle

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 10:51:02 AM

Sure. And they way you get universal consensus is to threaten people with prison if they don't comply. This tactic has been shown to work really really well in thousand of other realms

vaultdweller

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

hello guys im new

legiteum

member

Activity: 182

Merit: 47

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 29, 2024, 10:14:48 AM

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

I wouldn't even know how to begin to answer that: federal agencies have saved investors billions, if not trillions of dollars since they were created by Congress ~100 years ago.

Give me an example of a law. You're the president. What does become compulsory as a process if I want to run a cryptocurrency exchange that would ensure the customers' funds are insured or more protected against a hack?

Generally, if you defraud customers, you will go to prison. Just ask SBF. I understand this is very broad, but you are making an extremely broad claim here in saying that a government cannot protect against fraud and thus does not make it safer for average investors, and therefore does not increase the number of market participants, and therefore does not massively increase prices.

If all of the SBF's of the world were allowed to simply steal people's money, then nobody would invest in anything crypto related. I don't know how else to explain this. This seems rather obvious to me...

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

Meanwhile, if the core devs of Bitcoin collectively decided to increase the max block number, then they... could. I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but in the case of Bitcoin it's up to the decisions of a group of unelected, unaccountable entities.

This is certainly not the case. The developers can write any code they want, just as we, the individuals, can run any software we want. If a group of people change the 21 million limit, we can simply refuse to run that. There have been many instances of Bitcoin developers trying to change fundamental parts of Bitcoin in the past, resulted in altcoins nobody even remembers anymore.

Sure, but you are just you. Michael Saylor won't crash his company out of some technical principle, nor would El Salvador commit their country to financial ruin just to piss off Donald Trump. Major Bitcoin holders would do what the US government told them to do because, unlike you, they have no choice but to care about the value of their Bitcoin holdings.

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

And lest this seem implausible, I'll create a simple scenario for you: in 2025, President Trump wants pay of the US national debt with Bitcoin as he promised to do so in the campaign, so he orders Satoshi's blocks to be released (through a change in core to specifically hack them). Core devs of Bitcoin do this or become international criminals, so they comply.

So, they agree to write the code for Trump. They do. The next challenge: convincing the entire network to run those binaries. This is a process that is orders of magnitude more difficult and fundamentally different. There must be consensus on the new fork, or it will be rejected. In other words, defining what Bitcoin is lies beyond the authority of just a few developers.

Sure. And they way you get universal consensus is to threaten people with prison if they don't comply. This tactic has been shown to work really really well in thousand of other realms

Quote from: legiteum on September 29, 2024, 09:56:42 AM

(* Fun fact: I never use the word "fiat currency" to describe national sovereign currencies because it doesn't differentiate them from digital currencies: they all obtain their value purely by virtue of their subjective human demand, so all digital currencies are "fiat" currencies).

Not at all. Fiat currencies hold value because governments, with all their military power, declare them as legal tender. This goes far beyond the subjective human demand that applies to things like bread, houses, or Bitcoin.

Well yes, I agree--although I wouldn't use the loaded term, "legal tender" (see the threads about "legal tender" about this).

But yeah, the USD is backed by the US government, etc. I totally agree, and yes, that's objectively more valuable than any other form of currency because of the implicit threat/protection of a government. In other words, the US government, with it's 3000 nuclear warheads, will always protect the US dollar--which you cannot say about any other currency including any digital currency.

Synchronice

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 792

Watch Bitcoin Documentary - https://t.ly/v0Nim

Quote from: coolcoinz on September 26, 2024, 02:26:48 PM

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him Wink

Garry is a puppet and SEC is a joke. Their twitter account got hacked a day before Bitcoin ETF approval. This year it became clear that Garry has no power when big bad wolves show their interest in particular thing.

Quote from: d5000 on September 26, 2024, 06:33:08 PM

Pressures from the shitcoin industry, probably Grin

And Cuban would fit, see:

Definitely there is a pressure. They want to fill every possible ETF to manipulate the market and earn billions of dollars.

Quote from: stompix on September 28, 2024, 12:21:17 PM

How many times has Gensler said that Bitcoin is not a security and the SEC has no business regulating it?
A hundred at least, last time yesterday how does this thing not make him pro bitcoin?
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/09/27/secs-gensler-wont-reveal-his-view-on-trumps-bitcoin-reserve-reiterates-bitcoin-isnt-a-security/

The only benefit of Bitcoin spot ETF approvals were increased money flow. It benefited and will benefit Bitcoin investors to generate a decent profit but the downside is that it's part of the plan that aims to take over Bitcoin, i.e. control it. Today ETFs, tomorrow ban of decentralized exchanges, then probably censorship of transactions...

P.S. Guys, not billionaire is pro-crypto or something similar. All of them arepro-(making themselves rich) and making you poorer.

Pages:

Bitcoin Forum>Other>Politics & Society

Jump to: