Bitcoin Forum

Around 2013 Obama's administration launched the original, controversial operation Chokepoint when many businesses, despite operating fully legally, started losing access to banking services forcing many of them to shut down. That crackdown was not conducted by any formal, voted-for legislation, but was done indirectly by putting pressure on banks to cease support for specific types of businesses.
You can read about that in this 2014 thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=616603.0

Fast forward 10 years: Biden's administration (who was a vice president under Obama for those who don't know) is trying to do the same to the crypto sector. This is nicely explained by Nic Carter in this article:
https://www.piratewires.com/p/crypto-choke-point

Or this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1jp4FrKlU

Also mentioned by Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2023/02/09/us-accused-of-trying-to-quietly-ban-bitcoin-ethereum-and-crypto/

I don't find it surprising at all. No, I think Biden has chosen the perfect time to quietly pull the rug out from under the feet of the crypto community. The crypto market has been in continuous decline since the ftx platform crisis, which contributed to the decline in Americans' confidence in this market in general.
The second point is related to the banks willingness to obey these procedures, because by doing so they will lose an important part of the income from withdrawals and deposits through trading platforms.

It's obvious that US administration started fighting on all fronts with everything that has any connection with fiat and crypto, that includes banks with their cards, all p2p platforms (several shut down recently), and centralized exchanges are under pressure for some time.
To me it's clear why they are doing this, they are working hard to remove cash from all countries (it already started in Nigeria), and introduce their shitty CBDC projects as poor replacement everywhere.
They can't do that fully until they control Bitcoin to fiat money flow as much as they can, but they also tried banning torrents for years and look at their poor results with that example.

Banks will be more in favor to this because they will benefit on this, luckily crypto businesses are not centered in America, meaning if they will push this through many investors will be forced to do business outside US which can be more open to other countries as a good development.

Hard to know if the current administration is secretly doing this, and with the current movement of SEC, we might see the pattern on this. Well, Bitcoin is being attacked since then so this is not new anymore. Fortunately Bitcoin is made by this, and still able to rise despite of all the pressure on every country.

If they won't unbank Coinbase and Binance, Bitcoin will be fine. If they do, the price will instantly plummet, adoption will either slow down significantly or turn negative. But it seems like the chance of them doing the latter are very low, since this is a very unofficial rumored crackdown on smaller businesses rather than a total ban on crypto.

They should. It will help decentralized exchanges

@pawel7777. This is certainly what everyone in the cryptospace should be expecting. They do not want the cryptospace to compete with the moneylaundering operations of their backers from the banking sector hehehe.

I would begin to be more skeptical if the Biden administration began a more supportive attitude on bitcoin and the cryptospace.

Also, more stricter legislations should also be expected under Biden. I speculate that everything will be banned in time and with only a few whitelisted projects and services allowed to continue.



Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she plans to reintroduce legislation with Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., that would extend anti-money laundering laws to a broad array of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. That would include digital asset wallet providers, miners, validators and other blockchain network participants.

The original version of the bill she and Marshall introduced last December also would have prohibited banks and other financial institutions from transactions with digital asset mixers, which are meant to mask transactions made on public blockchains.

If introduced in the same form as last December, the bill would also extend anti-money laundering reporting requirements to include U.S. persons who transact in $10,000 or more in digital assets using an offshore account and require the Treasury Department to do anti-money laundering compliance examinations for money service businesses, the registration that large U.S. crypto companies fall under.

Source https://www.theblock.co/post/211783/warren-pledges-to-reintroduce-crypto-anti-money-laundering-bill

US is trying to ban Bitcoin, not only the centralized exchange!

Although decentralized exchange can be a way for the US citizens to trade Bitcoin, you're breaking the laws and you're must make sure anything you're doing will not get detected by SEC! when you're using decentralized exchange, you will need to use bank accounts to receive your fiat which is leave a trace for the chainalysis and SEC to track you.

I have no idea why you can think using a decentralized exchange will offer 100% anonymity, it doesn't simple as that.

if you are running a service of swapping "currency"  for a fee, requiring using your bank account for wire transfers as part of that swap.. you are a money service business MSB/payment facilitator. requiring a licence and a business bank account

being a MSB/PF is not a acceptable term of use in your personal bank account terms of service agreement

local bitcoin users that done regular p2p swaps for fiat .. got hit the most by their banks flagging the unusual frequency of wire transfers..
this has been ongoing for years (2014+) world wide. when countries legitimised crypto as currency "money" (instead of private property(pre 2014)

but thats the downside of when bitcoin became a "legitimised currency" in law, which meant those doing money service businesses need to then become licenced businesses if they do more then whats deemed "personal use"

you can be a MSB but not from a personal account without a MSB licence
yes needing to get a licence which means KYC customers and such.

the amateur users stupidly thought the solution was to open new bank accounts and then use de-fi, thinking the fault lays in links to using 'localbitcoins' as the cause..
but localbitcoins only fault was advertising amareurs, which meant amateurs got too popular. doing too many wire transfers thus hitting the thresholds of flags of non personal use  in their personal accounts

but again the de-fi users if they get too popular by having too frequent random transfers to strangers for amounts outside of whats deemed personal use. will get caught running a MSB

hint hint. dont get too popular de-fi guys if you are still using a personal bank account to do your swaps

This is not surprising at all since it has always been how the modern dictatorships work. They quietly enforce their illegal authority on people and call it democracy and anybody who speaks against it and gains momentum will be "deleted".
This is also not surprising knowing that US dollar is losing its dominance slowly and in a couple of years its value could be lower than Venezuela bolivar as more countries dump it. The US regimes fear is obvious so they try to eliminate all competition, whether it is Chinese Yuan or decentralized bitcoin. Funny thing is that they lose in all cases...

No surprises there! Same has been done in my country as well.  This is a well thought-out move by the world leaders. Every government understands that crypto market has not yet reached to an extent where they can survive on its own. A seamless integration is needed with fiat for the crypto market to survive and grow. So the governments are cutting the access to banking services for the crypto related businesses.

In my country, the government did the same to a company called Zebpay. Now they have moved to Singapore and operate in 30 countries except my country. Options will be there but now the crypto businesses will have to go through a lot of regulatory hassles.

Ooh, scary stuff, I'm scared guys can someone post a ban appeal to the white house? We promise to be good from now on. Joe the sleepyhead.

i as a brit can say this without bias...

i read the OP's content as if he is a republican/trump supporter being anti democratic party

however the actual events are not banning all accounts
its banning accounts of bank account owners that are doing business but not being licenced, when said businesses are operating as a money business
its also businesses that operate certain flaggable offenses such as laundering russian riches or gambling services in a no-gambling region or other politically prohibited stuff

yes those businesses might be operating ethically for their customers. but they still need to operate legally

the fault here lays in where bitcoin stopped being treated as a tradable private property and instead traded as a currency which allowed regulators to get their fingers in and grab power over crypto businesses

its the downside of "going mainstream recognition as a currency circa 2013 and being more enforced since

It's easier to say it's called making everyone play by the same rules.

People who took the time, set themselves up as a MSB, properly filed the paperwork and everything else were and are loosing money to people who were doing things under the table. Want to take $100 of BTC and convert it to fiat for a friend, fine. Want to do it for a stranger, also fine. Want to do it for 1000 people and charge a percentage. You are running a MSB and should be treated as such.

-Dave

yep daveF said it better

but still worth adding in. that the real cause of the requirement of licencing for the big players above X threshold.. was defining bitcoin as a currency rather than its original 2009-2014 category, which was private property

becasue its the "defined as currency" part that allowed the regulators to step in..
..
pre 2014 people could trade as much as they liked without regulation/licencing because bitcoin was treated the same as trading pokemon cards and artwork back then

Yes, Yes. NSA also knows the color of your underwear from another continent while pinky swearing that they are protecting you from "the bad guys" and doing it for the national security. ;D

someones been on the weed and has the tin foil at on

by being a currency. you join the competition of the banks.
bitcoin could have continued as-is, being defined as private property and not need compliance of businesses to be the same as banks compliance

we could have developed our own security/insurance things to keep businesses honourable.. but instead we just got too happy that governments wanted to step in
and "legitimise bitcoin" (endorse) without thinking of the negatives of such act

to me regulations should not be about delegating money service businesses to police the customers. regulations should be regulators auditing the businesses and taking businesses to court quickly when they screw customers over

..
yes i dislike the hypocrisy of "licencing"
where by there are MORAL businesses not screwing over customers who are not "legit" because they didnt "just register" now being easily slammed by their banks
and how those that do register get a free pass on certain immoral acts and given weak penalties for doing so simply because they did "just register"

The other 1/2 the of it is that is also has the potential to save people from getting scammed by others who are operating without the proper licensing.

DaveF goes out and files the paperwork, gets the background checks, posts valid bonds and insurance.
pooya87 does not.

DaveF as has to charge more to cover his expenses. pooya87 does not.

DaveF disappears with a bunch of peoples money. After a bunch of time and effort they get at least some of their money back from the bond and insurance.

pooya87 disappears with a bunch of peoples money. After a bunch of time and effort people get nothing. Possibly an auction here on BTC from other community members trying to help out.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434623.0

Even today there are banks here in the US that do not have FDIC insurance. And people keep putting money into them. And are surprised when they disappear in the middle of the night with their funds.

As franky1 said. You want to be a currency you get to play by those rules.

-Dave

private property (as bitcoin was pre 2014) had human rights to privacy by default
(property law)

by being currency(2013+) its now part of "bank secrecy act" rules which is different to human rights. where financial data is not treated the same as private property

yep i said it you have no rights to privacy when using currency
and thats been the law since way before the most people were born(1970)

so its not a new thing that was invented by obama after bitcoin was invented and used to fight bitcoin. its something thats always been in play for 50 years. which bitcoiners think they are not part of because they still think its still the ethos of bitcoin 2009-2013.. even though they accept the "mainstream free publicity" benefits of bitcoin categorisation 2013+. they just didnt read the downside of accepting the categorisation of bitcoin 2013+

oh by the way..
china that banned treating bitcoin as currency. this stops regulated businesses from exchanging bitcoin. (and if a business is offering exchanges it should be regulated)

but bitcoin is actually protected in china as private property.. allowing people to privately trade and own it(p2p). and they cant do anything about it
yep a chinese person can still own bitcoin and privately trade it p2p. they just cant find a regulated centralised exchange in china to exchange it

Good points but the problem is that the regulations are made by governments to monitor people's activities not to ensure their security. This is why they enforce a lot of restrictions on customers such as KYC which is not going to help with the business owner scamming its users but instead will give all your detailed information and your activities to the authorities.
We see that in the banking system too. Remember the disasters leading to 2008? All those banks were regulated and members of FDIC and yet they ruined the economy and in the end they were bailed out while their "customers" were crushed.

firstly some clarity
its not governments watching citizens. you wont see a politician sat at a computer looking at citizens daily activity

secondly
50-100-200year ago (country dependant, dates are different)

banks set up their business (property laws) allowed them to self regulate

when people handed over gold to banks the banks internal rules over its property was gold became the banks property and the bank made private property contracts with depositors to "promise them" a redemption rate if they handed back the contract.. (bearer bonds(first promissory notes) aka bank notes)

then banks had other people wanting to become banks. so the establishment set minimum standards for its competitors. and that started the bank standards charters (policies and requirements to be a bank)

such as having to use the established bank promissory notes and need to pay the established banks a licence fee. and so on
all of this lead up many things we still see now

over the years bad banks done bad things. which is where governments set up independant regulators. not a government, not a bank. but independant auditors..

banks then lobbied to get a bit of sway in what they can do with a regulator
and slowly banks became secretly the regulators
(again reminder, its not politicians sat at computers in regulator offices, its banks(well exbankers)

banks then had secret meetings with polititicians to change other laws. and eventually banks did not have to even honour its promises (gold/sterling silver de-peg)

few decades later we had the work around #disruptbanking "payment services" like paypal and venmo and union pay where they didnt need to have the minimum requirements banks set as policy/charter.
this then soon changed where payment services then too needed to meet standards, but not enough to earn a bank charter. so they became just "payment services"/"money service businesses" thus not competing with banks, but an underclass custodians

now we have alternative currencies like crypto. trying to disrupt banking again

banks dont want to give crypto exchanges a "bank charter" but dont want crypto exchanges to have less rules then payment services/money service businesses. and so bank regulators latched onto crypto by defining it as a currency so they then can declare businesses doing certain functions are defined as MSB


what you find in the middle of this century ago
banks wanted a bit more control. so they lobbied government to set up some middle man supervisor where banks can report on customers and competitors.
which is where these middlemen regulators were run by ex-bankers. not auditors nor politicians
these regulators favoured the banks not the citizen
and no they are not government politician managed.  they are endorsed by government but ran like a business with ex bankers as ceo

---

now for those wondering how to change this
well most countries have an election each year.
maybe form an idea of saying "we wont vote for you unless your election pledge includes:...."

and then do petitions for your local candidates. to let them know without a doubt what policies citizens want to see

so start with "regulation overhaul to be less business sheriff gold badge policing.. and more consumer protection related"

if you can get a large local population demanding that their representative does things in a certain way. and enough regions do the same thus making majority of representatives/candidates of next election are singing the same songsheet. then thats the way most political laws move towards what citizens want

You are actually using the wrong language here - the ban technically comes in when Biden's administration makes way in the 2024 elections. :)

---

Anyway, they can try all they want, and I'm sure Bitcoin Magazine will be able to include this as a reference in one of their cartoon strips about "attacks on Bitcoin".

Drifting a bit OT but I will not say it's an apples to oranges comparison but rather a lemons to limes.
If you had money in an FDIC insured bank that failed. You got your money back, many people got their money back well above their insurance limits.

The stock / bond / mortgage holders who got crushed I would put more into the people who invested in all the scam coins that are out there that vanished in the middle of the night so to speak.

When you had places lending 110%+ of STATED (not appraised) property value those of us watching who had seen the dot com implosion knew what was going to happen. The only question was when.

Either way, it's what we have now. So although we can keep sitting here and complaining about it, without getting peoples support behind it nothing is going to happen.
And here is the kicker that nobody want's to hear. Most people WANT more regulation of things like this. Because *most* people don't want to know or care about how BTC works they just want to make money off of it somehow, and regulation makes them feel safe. IF they actually are or not safe is a different story, but they just want to feel safe.

We here are not in the most people category,  so we have a different view.

-Dave

Decentralised exchanges don't operate with fiat money. They could replace it with stablecoins, but at the end of the day, stablecoin issuers also would need access to banking to hold fiat deposits and process transactions.

We need people to be able to buy/sell for fiat.


They won't ban it outright, the time for that has passed a long time ago. Now, when crypto is pretty much mainstream, they can only slowly cripple trading and other crypto-projects to keep it contained and not pose a threat to the financial system.

Agreed! Every move made by governments that impose strict rules and regulations on the people are only made to protect itself and those who financially support their political campaigns. I am not quite certain why there are still people who are not very skeptical on the actions of the government. Everyone should be concerned everytime there is a new bill that passes into law.

But it was also late in 2013 when Bitcoin made an all time high. It was probably a strong enough statement that Bitcoin doesn't care at all. Whether it was more of the effect of the first halving in 2012 isn't the point. It still means Bitcoin is stronger than the development under Obama's administration.

If Obama failed a decade ago, Biden will fail more today. But the point is Bitcoin doesn't care. It's interesting to note that Bitcoin creates an ATH in every administration. It had one during Obama, another during Trump, and another during the current administration.

We have seen this coming for a while now and we know they are doing this to pave the way for a "cashless" economy, where they can fully track all transactions on their digital cash technologies.

We know most criminal activities are not done with Crypto, but rather with physical cash. (How many drug dealers on the street are accepting crypto as payment for their drugs.... right?)

So, they will eliminate their competition and replace it with their own centralized digital version of cash, which they control.  ::)

what people are calling "bidens law"
is not about "banning bitcoin"

its about businesses operating as financial services without registering they are:
a business
  -this affects the personal bank account holders that do too many wire transfers on
   localbitcoins and de-fi, breaching their personal banking terms&conditions
   - yep processing say 100k a year for random strangers has been a personal bank
     account red flag for many many years before bitcoin even existed

a financial business
  - this affects both personal and business accounts where they dont have a
    MSB/PSP/PF licence to operate as a financial service. again a rule that predates bitcoin

the detail people forget is that bitcoin became a currency in 2013 thus standard banking policy
began applying to bitcoin businesses after 2013

which isnt about biden/obama. it was the "mainstreaming" of being defined as a currency

yep it was the "bitcoin got allowed" celebrations by many that caused the jurisdictions to then get their fingers into deciding what certain entities can do in crypto

---

as daveF said. if your just doing $100(small amounts) to friends or strangers infrequently. its not going to hit thresholds of red flags

doing the banking limits thresholds of $1k+ $10k+ $xxk+ expect questions
wire transfer thresholds existed pre-bitcoin
but became applicable for bitcoins doing wire transfer. when bitcoin became a currency

They can't unbank Coinbase because they are a publicly traded company and that would hurt the US stock market as well (and at this point they might as well be talking about unbanking Kraken as well).

And they also cannot unbank Binance because they already did that when they banned Binance from operating in the US a long time ago. The only thing they actually can regulate is their US arm which is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

It is obvious that crypto is a global thing and doesn't care what US government wants to do or not. I get that they want to control it or at least control the citizens who use it, but that doesn't mean that they will be capable of doing that, they will most likely end up with nothing at all on their hands if they tried to pressure the public too much about this.

People in crypto care about their freedom from the government and that means they are not going to let the government get involved too much, they may do something about it, but they won't let it get that further down the line. Even if there were laws about it, they would just find ways to work around it.

I agree with others that it is not as big of a deal as people make it out to be. However, my main counterpoint to this is the fact that big banks and all those rich folks control USA, from media to politicians to many other industries, look at how they still allow oil companies to get paid help, when they make billions, all because of narrative control and bribery to politicians. So nothing bad could happen to crypto, since these banks are involved with crypto as well and they want it to be left alone, so they can easily pay billions to politicians to make it as legal as possible and go with our direction, which for the first time ever, would help us too.

Much ado about nothing is what I'd call this article.


A crypto "bank" that nobody in the space seems to need, wanted to become an officially recognized bank, join the ranks of the masters of fractional reserve and was denied. Who would've thought that they won't like an entity that deals in as they call it "sound money" to become one of them. Bitcoiners and banks don't use the same principles.

A crypto company that wants to become accepted by the Federal Reserve money printer must be nuts.

2009 Banks are evil and need to disappear!!!!
2023 We need access to banks and to have our own government regulated banks !!!!

Seems like the witch hunting is back, is always this irresponsible blame game from people that seek attention every single moment, on one side we have the ever-triumphant march of the government being unable to stop us, of crypto defying every obstacle and the next day like a bunch of pussy crying over one line of regulation that foils their mastermind plans.
Oh for god's sake, just stop with this.


So in short, you have no problem with blood money as long as it's not your blood and the money is in your pocket not somebodies else!
You hated the government and politicians because they weren't throwing a bone, that's what it was?

BAN all "crypto" keep "Bitcoin"

--Coffeezilla

In my opinion, the governments of almost all countries are not interested in the development and prosperity of Bitcoin.

Satoshi Nakamoto created the first cryptocurrency as an antagonist to the traditional financial system of his time.  

Why would this financial system destroy itself?  

Governments are forced to put up with bitcoin because they fear that if they ban the first cryptocurrency, more anonymous and private protocols (such as Monero) may come to the fore.  It is dangerous to ban Bitcoin, it is much more profitable to slowly deprive it of its ideological appeal and the possibility of development and scaling.  

In particular, one of the tactical goals may be its maximum isolation from the modern banking system.

Most people don't have strong convictions about anything really. You can shift their "opinions" just by phrasing the question differently. If you present a question of more regulations emphasising safety etc, they'd be for it, but if you point that the banks/authorities will limit their freedoms and have ability to censor them - they'd be against it.

Another black pill is that what people think is completely irrelevant to what type of legislation is being passed. As evidenced by a "Gilens' flatline", aka "The most terrifying graph on democracy" (a big study compiling nearly 2,000 US polls, conducted in 2014).

https://i.imgur.com/Ncue96G.png

They also use other tactics to divide the people and create a setting where communities will fight against each other to make it much harder to see the real enemy. A divided community is easier to manipulate because they only think that their enemy is from the opposite side of the argument, however, the real enemy is the one creating the division.

This is very head shaking because there might be such occurences in the cryptospace community.

That is basically roman times tactic and has worked for 2 thousand years. When romans failed to beat an enemy, they would create chaos somewhere else to get their attention to that. Biggest example has been Hannibal, when he was roaring through roman empire, and beating everyone, they caused him to go back to Africa and beat him there, and created chaos within his consul. Because they couldn't beat him on open field.

All in all, I would guess that for the past 2 thousand years, this has been used a lot, and media does the same thing now. I can rephrase a news topic 10 different ways to make you think 10 different things about the same subject, all depends on how you write it.

I'm still stuck in that 2009 rhetoric, but that's probably because in my early days I read and watched a lot of Andreas, Max, and now Michael Saylor and a few others.
I think that shitcoins like XRP that call themselves bridges between traditional finances and bitcoin managed to fool a lot of people into believing their "2023" logic.

I think the problem is deeper than "them" creating divisions. That would suggest that if "they" (however you define them) stopped doing that, everything would be fine.
What we witnessed in recent decades is a massive erosion of what used to be common values that kept societies and communities together.
To not be divided means to be united, and for that, you need to unite around something. If people can't agree on basic values or agree on any principles and on what's right or wrong - you're ending up with a low-trust society where everyone cares mostly about themselves. Such a society is very easy to control.

Thank You to everyone contributing to this discussion, it makes me wonder wonderful the World could truly become if we were truly unblocked from co-operating with each other...........I tend to agree though we have to Idealogically find the balance, due to the corrupt nature of this Earth and recognize we can't fix everything with just crypto!

However the forces against any types of Freedom are enormous!  1 Point I would like to add is the Honey Pot Trap.............Most people go through their lives if they so happen to excel enough to compensate for the corrupt downwash from the Fiat Printing Systems of the World!  

They will eventually arrive to a position of reasonable power which the Top Dogs have a whole host of Psychological Tools in their Arsenal to entice and trap such Souls!  Too many to list!

But I just want to Highlight the Psychology of how they make decisions the Big Decision Makers like Jeffrey Epstein were so entangled with having any desire he could want he was the one running the show!

His decisions were not at all effected by "Desire" for sex, money, ect..........as he had it all in unlimited amounts.............he was "gifted" the largest Mansion in NYC for $1 USD!  He was "allowed" to operate an "unregulated" Ponzi network working with and creating Non-Profit Organizations to launder "Deals"

So, people need to be aware the temptations we are all faced with are enormous in current times and the lack of knowledge of it is even greater a danger!  

We truly need Jesus to comeback and start Whipping "The Money Changers", but in reality we need to rely on God that he gave us the tools and his "Holy Spirit" to communicate with us the difficult path we are REQUIRED to take and learn how to individually Whip "The Money Changers" from our lives!

I have to leave it at that for now!

But the Bankers only Real "Chokepoint" is the Grave, but they establish literally thousands and thousands of chokepoints against the masses of which they themselves are seemingly able to not be held accountable to any Rules whatsoever!

It's truly past time to overthrow them!  But humans are a truly sad state in reality!  Divided and Conquered "DIVOC-2019" DIVOC means divide and conquer in Hebrew!

NexusFlavor!

Hm, this is indeed an interesting recipe for the coming years:

- Soft ban on Bitcoin and altcoins

- Implementation of CBCD

- Reduction of the cash in circulation

The SEC is already tackling against Paxos and BUSD, calling a security when we all know it does not make sense to call a stablecoin a security. This is about the government of the United States wanting to have the monopoly not only over the dollar and any other dollar-pegged asset, but also digital payment systems.

Let us remember that markets are about pairs. In the case of BTC/USD, they cannot touch BTC, so they go all in against the liquidity of the pair in USD, both in form of stablecoins and banking services. Things may get messy.

You are correct and this massive erosion of common values is called demoralization. This is done through the use of years of a common tactic we very much know within the cryptospace community called fear, uncertainty and doubt. The real enemy who wants to create a division uses different media outlets for fakenews, clickbaits and information manipulation to cause the people question their own beliefs. If they begin to question their own beliefs, they are starting to be demoralized. I reckon the Russians and Chinese have been doing this tactic in America.

In an email with subject "[URGENT] Bitwage Banking Switch - Change of Service Offered" dated today, BitWage (http://"https://www.bitwage.com/") said:

I don't see any different between Obama administration and Biden administration, because businesses men are women are still going through a lot of things in the country, high taxes be imposed to business people which is affecting business owners not to grow very well these days.

Even the crypto that is helping some people to grow their businesses in the country, it has been banned by the new administration which some crypto users will use to punish this administration not to vote for Biden to return back to power again.

Since Trump has made some promises concerning crypto in the country, it will make many people to turn up for this election to vote for someone that will make people business to start pumping and to have access to crypto in their country.

Bitcoin went up 500% under president Biden.

Donald Trump plans to deport 5% of the American population, which radically disrupt our economy, eliminating a massive pool of workers and radically raising labor costs in the US.

Trump's platform promises a new "war on abortion" that will greatly surpass the excesses of the of "War on Drugs", wherein they need to stop several million women every year from making the choice about their body they need to make. Republicans are, in short, going to regulate sex and try to greatly curtail it in the US. This is going require a massive new police state and things like Bitcoin tend to be the first target of governments like that.

Trump has shown himself to be a grifter--and his supporters know it and don't care--so his most obvious action would be to ban Bitcoin and only allow people to buy his own personal currency, making himself rich at the expense of the rest of us.

Trump doesn't care about your Bitcoin, and neither do his supporters. Anything he says now is just campaign BS to get your vote.

The safe bet is to stick with Biden and the Democrats this November.