Yes, I know you’re here to let the hate flow.
I bought all the rhetoric. Donald Trump He loves coding. he Embrace DeFi. He has his Special shoesAnd coins. He’s going to Fire Gary! Like Bullemarket in October, she believes Trump does too Boo why?.
Unfortunately, I bought a lot of another type of bull.
To parse this, we have to understand the reality of the “Crypto 4 Trump” initiative — a coalition of largely U.S.-based public mining companies and exchanges that has banded together to spend aggressively to end its abuse.
They are tired of being prosecuted, harassed, and then kicked out of America. Also, they have every reason to be.
But unfortunately, the Bitcoin industry is not like that. This was the same argument that was made to justify the Fork Wars, and let’s just say to recap, that this ended terribly. If US miners have to move elsewhere, mining will continue elsewhere, and will decentralize the hash rate As we saw in the case of the mining ban in ChinaSimply put: good for Bitcoin™.
To be sure, ASIC manufacturing may remain standardized in a few international companies. It will probably take longer to rebuild. But other countries will benefit, and the Bitcoin network will continue. Bitcoin may be our best chance to overthrow all current superpowers and empower the developing world. If that means leaving the United States behind, so be it.
Now let’s address the donkey in the room. A Kamala presidency would mean more enforcement of US securities laws, not a referendum allowing millions of altcoins to spread.
A Trump win will almost certainly guarantee only one outcome for our industry, which is that the SEC will be weakened, meaning that “coins beyond Bitcoin” will get a “level playing field.”
By contrast, continuing to enforce the SEC’s securities laws on the industry would spell the difference between Bitcoin, which was distributed via proof-of-work (the only known way to circumvent securities sales), and all centralized variants. Many.
Simply put: it is “cryptoassets” that require a regulatory framework to survive, not Bitcoin, which is sufficiently decentralized.
Forcing cryptocurrency industry builders to adhere to these laws will undoubtedly benefit developers seeking to extend these capabilities to Bitcoin, the only major cryptocurrency with regulatory clarity. Would we actually argue that encouraging millions of developers to put their technology on Bitcoin (instead of Ethereum or Solana) would be a bad thing?
If there’s a cohesive thread to Bitcoin’s maximization, it’s the assertion that everything outside of Bitcoin is either 1) a scam or 2) can be built on top of its own blockchain. The ongoing crackdown on cryptocurrencies will push the market to more thoroughly investigate the second point.
It will undoubtedly also boost Microstrategy’s stock, MSTR, as it will remain one of the few widely accessible plays for a legitimate Bitcoin beta.
Sure, taxes on your Bitcoin gains will probably be higher, and spending may still be penalized. But hey Anon, I thought you were just walking around anyway?
So, remind me of all the supposed pro-Bitcoin policies of the Trump presidency, what do you expect to get, other than state-mandated debasement and non-proliferation in the heartland?
If you were a single Bitcoin voter, wouldn’t that mean voting for an option that would make Bitcoin more decentralized, and less dependent on US government policy?
Let me introduce you again to Madam President Harris, which is a bullish option for Bitcoin.
This article is a takes. The opinions expressed are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.