Bitcoin Forum

Some folks are really obsessed with the US election. I can understand it partly because Trump, as the first candidate ever in US election history (afaik) has taken a very pro-crypto stance.

But that doesn't mean that Bitcoin will not be fine if Kamala Harris wins. Even if she didn't reveal her stance on crypto/Bitcoin (yet) and is likely to continue the Biden approach which is more skeptical to "crypto", above all altcoins.

For those reasons:

1) Even in Biden's "anti-crypto" tenure Bitcoin has done well. Not only did the price rise, but ETFs were approved, even for Ethereum.

2) The US are already a leading Bitcoin/crypto country. They don't need Trump for that. In the mining sector, they are "the" single leading country. There are also several exchanges in the country. At least ~50 million American people hold crypto according to estimations.

3) Altcoins are far more affected by the SEC policy than Bitcoin. The SEC's actions under Gensler were mostly directed to altcoin exchanges, the "staking" business (which is not even really PoS-style staking but often a ponzi-like construction of some exchanges) and DeFi projects which are not really decentralized, like Uniswap.

4) The US are only 4% of the world population. Bitcoin is a global currency. In addition, as shown above, in the US population crypto has already a high adoption (almost 20% of the population having already bought or held crypto). The potential for future price growths lies mainly outside the US where adoption is often still much lower, even in rich countries in Europe for example.

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

Discuss & Disagree :)

When I read things like this I feel so happy that some people are every enlightened about bitcoin towards the US election. The fact that lots of people's opinion of bitcoin is basically hanging around the US election has always pissed me off because they seem to see bitcoin only limited to the US, forgetting the obvious fact that bitcoin is global currency and not a national currency even though bitcoin might be affected with the election it will only be a temporary price change.

@OP I can't love this post less because it has all my idea and opinion of the election and bitcoin expressed.

Bitcoin is not a US coin it's a global currency, the US election has nothing to decide for bitcoin, stop limiting bitcoin to US only with the so called election predictions.

IIRC, Biden during his very first week discussed crypto and said that he would go into it but then nothing happened to fruition. And so if Harris wins, I'd expect the same thing. With or without her stance about Bitcoin or crypto, she'd focus more into other concerns that needs to be addressed with her governance.

I don't take it seriously, whoever wins, there's a possibility that Bitcoin will go up or down. However, due to volatility, I think that it is going to be the main reason why it could be as low as that projection but nothing in relation to Harris winning the election. And at this point, I'm not expecting to see it go back to $30k, we're in a bull run and once this election ends I'm expecting that money would flow back to the market. Just expect that this election will have some agendas and black propaganda to dismay each other's turfs and supporters.

Trump only takes advantage of people who are into crypto so that's why he's taken a pro-cryptp stance as you have said. Even if trump didn't do it then bitcoin would still be fine just as the same as if Kamala Harris bitcoin would also be fine. As Churchillvv explained that it is not a us coin or crypto but global crypto where anyone can use if they want even those countries where crypto is banned. We all know rhat there are still people who still use crypto even if their government bans the use of crypto.

Bitcoin will do just fine irrespective of who ever wins the election; even if Kamala wins and has ill intentions against Bitcoin, the worst-case scenario will be that she will limit US citizens from making use of Bitcoin and place some kind of unfriendly policy on big firms that hold large amounts of Bitcoin. 
 
There is no doubt that the Bitcoin price can be influenced by the US government, but there is a limit to what they can do; they can't total crash the price to nothing. If Kamala wins the elections and decides to make some negative moves against bitcoin, bitcoin will only suffer for a while, and after a while the influence will die off and the community will just get over it.

Who says bitcoin won't be fine if Kamala Harris won? Just because Kamala is not highly verbal about bitcoin and the crypto space does not mean that she isn't supporting bitcoin in silent. We still don't know her future plans for bitcoin if ever she won, and even if she won't prioritize bitcoin same like Biden, that won't change the fact that bitcoin is already good for majority of its users and investors.

I think we are just speculating too much. Bitcoin is never a single country commodity but a worldwide currency and investment tool. Even Harris or Trump won't change that fact.

I refuse to believe that the success of Bitcoin starts with the success of one individual or one event this is why I'm not really concerned about the result of the United States election because I know that with whichever candidate that wins Bitcoin will still do just fine. The people who are worrying about how bitcoin will do under any of the candidates have nothing else to worry about because there are more important things like trying to get more bitcoins before bitcoin gets a new high value.

Many people don't realize that Gary Gensler isn't a bad guy.
Gensler didn't delve into unscrupulous prosecution of crypto just based on stereotypes like it being "notorious markets" supposedly. Believe it or not, this type of stereotype was something that was hurting bitcoin for the longest time.

The notorious markets narrative was pushing bitcoin to the sidelines for so long. Lack of market access and regulation kept BTC and crypto away from the mainstream.
But even at the hint that there might be regulatory clarity many investors started putting great efforts to create market access and one thing lead to the other. More users, more market access demand, more investment and so on.

The one thing I would criticize Gensler for is not stepping in early enough to stop shit like FTX and Celsius. I'm not afraid to say it but I think Gensler is the good guy out of the equation. Even if Trump wins, I hope he keeps him in his position. Gensler pushed large capital firms to create ETFs with conditions favorable to the user and Gensler also created a framework so security scams sold as cryptos can't hurt people in his country so easily, all while allowing exchanges to operate, but with strict standards and making sure they abide by regulations (at least after the FTX fiasco).

So Biden isn't really an anti-crypto president. And with the influence crypto has now, I think Kamala might have a similar stance also. It's funny hearing Trump call her a communist. She might be a bit backwards on some topics, but many leftists would wish she was actually a communist. In fact she's a staunch neoliberal capitalist. Having some social tendencies doesn't mean she's against big company capitalism just like Trump would be.

It's very certain that Bitcoin has a very strong force and even during the tenure of trump it was doing very well in it's crypto space,and the rule of Biden too came up tho trying to alter it's existence but Bitcoin has still survived it and I presume with or without  Kamala Harris wins Bitcoin will still be fine.

I have some divided feelings about Gensler. On one hand his focus is clearly on scams and dubious services, mainly ICOs and services which are close to ponzis, and the "CeDeFi" sector (services marketing themselves as "DeFi" but are centrally coordinated) and of course on the correct operation of crypto exchange. And I think it's good that there's finally a focus on investor/customer protection in this field, so at least in the US a new FTX becomes less and less likely. So in this point I fully agree with you.

On the other hand there were some actions I think that should be criticized. Like the recent action against OpenSea. While NFTs indeed are also used for very dubious speculative purposes, the SEC is imo not entitled to intervene here as NFTs simply cannot be securities. I don't know exactly how the US regulates the ecommerce sector, but in my country it would be customer protection who has to become active in cases where NFT buyers are scammed, not the securities authority.

I think thus in general the SEC's influence on the crypto sector is probably more positive than many think, as you correctly posted, but they could be still better and clearer.

But I believe the narrative that the SEC and Gensler are "harming crypto" is coming mostly from the parts of the industry who refuse to adapt to the stricter customer protection standards.

I think at least with 50 million Americans holding crypto a real "anti-crypto" policy is highly unlikely. Many have cited Elizabeth Warren's crypto law project, and the fact that Warren is still quite influential in the Democratic Party. While not even that law would affect Bitcoin really too much - however miners could be driven out of the US - I could understand some fears if Warren or other people supporting that law (Graham, Manchin etc. ...) were the presidential candidate or VP candidates.

Say Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, their political comments often lead to controversy surrounding Bitcoin. Political comments focused on Bitcoin to win the polls, but after winning, took the opposite position on Bitcoin. It should be remembered that the United States has a strong position in the Bitcoin market, which is why many people consider Bitcoin as an important tool for voting. Yes but I think if Kamala Harris wins the vote then very likely Kamala Harris will take a positive decision on Bitcoin and that will definitely create a revolution in the global market for our Bitcoin.

In the first place, Bitcoin is not a concern. Quite frankly, Bitcoin is a non-issue in this election. There are certain Bitcoin fanatics who seem to put Bitcoin at the center stage. Some crypto-centered media is also making it appear as if Bitcoin is a key issue. It is not. No wonder why Bitcoin or even crypto was never mentioned in the debate.

We're all supporting Bitcoin but lest we end up a non-thinking cult we should always attach ourselves with the reality. The reality is that these politicians don't care about Bitcoin at all. The majority of the voters don't care about Bitcoin at all. There are more important issues out there.

I bet this thinking is coming from those who also raised questions like "Will Bitcoin dump following Kobe Bryant's death in a helicopter crash?" or "Selena Gomez won't get pregnant, will it affect Bitcoin's price?"

Sentiment towards bitcoin and the Crypto market is always an interesting object to discuss and of course many associate it with the presidential election later. My opinion, whoever the President will be, BTC will be fine and the price targeted by the analysis will also come as soon as possible. Well, from some of what I read, many are still optimistic that by the end of 2024 it will be $150K and %200K by the end of 2025.

This I can wholeheartedly agree because they're politicians after all, it's unlikely that they will not use anything that's in their disposal and grab on to every opportunity that's presented to them, and given that it's Trump who's been a businessman first before a politician then there's the high likeliness that he's going to be exploiting all the possible loopholes and opportunities and I think that we at least can learn something about that one even if we don't like the way that Trump conducts himself or we are just not into his principles. I totally agree that people will still use bitcoin even if there's restrictions but you got to understand that restrictions will still apply and not everyone that uses crypto won't give in to all the pressures of having to deal with such restrictions in the first place, I think that even with our complacency towards this kind of thing, there should still be some resistance on our community that would bring about change regarding general cryptocurrency restrictions.

Politicians are elected as Presidents, finish their presidential terms and they will step down with transition of that position and power to another politician who can continue vision and plans of a previous President and move next with their own completely new vision and plans.

Since 2009, Bitcoin was created, has been growing up a lot through many Presidents in the USA. who come from both parties, Republic Party and Democrat Party, with very good adoption and already shown its super strong survival strength. I am optimistic with future of Bitcoin under any next President in the USA. either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, a new President won't be powerful enough to destroy it.

No single President on Earth can destroy a decentralized Bitcoin network and its global communities.

If a nation shuts down all Bitcoin nodes, node operators will use VPNs and continue their works. If a nation ban Bitcoin mining, mining companies there will make a migration to neighbor countries like what happened with China in 2020 and a great migration to other countries in Middle East and to the USA.

Yes Bitcoin will be fine. If she wins there might be a temporarily dump like we saw when he was losing the debate but in the long run it will be fine.

But if Gensler is still in the SEC and he keeps suing all these tokens which he calls unregistered securities then we will get issues with many non-bitcoin type of coins. Honestly who knows, one day he might say that Ethereum is a security even though we got the ETH ETFs launched already.

So bitcoin will survive but it would of been more successful if she didn't win the election.

Yes, a temporary dump is possible - but only if Bitcoiners still insist that Bitcoin depends on US politics ;P

Maybe. But would that affect Bitcoin? I believe the altcoin market is much more dependant on Bitcoin's moves than Bitcoin is on the altcoin market.

The exceptions may be memecoins, which are more like a casino and are according to a recent study (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612322005372) are the category of coins with most chances to move in a "contrarian" sense than Bitcoin and thus could be used for hedging. This means however not that memecoins influence the Bitcoin price either. Only perhaps the Ordinals/Runes based coins could create some demand for Bitcoin but they are already dying and thus their influence may be minimal.

Thus, stricter regulations for altcoins would most likely not affect Bitcoin at all, or only minimally.

Weaker investor protections for ICOs, altcoins, service providers and DeFi, as written above, could even mean a higher crash risk. We've seen with Terra/Luna that a failed altcoin can influence Bitcoin negatively.

I think the only Trump announcement that could really significantly affect Bitcoin's price is the creation of a Bitcoin reserve, i.e. the "Don't sell a Bitcoin" policy. It would not boost Bitcoin to the moon for itself, but could cause a 20-30% pump perhaps.

However, one would have to wait if this pump can be sustainable. If more countries follow that line and incorporate seized BTC into their reserves or even actively buy some, then this would indeed create a bigger pump. But it's also possible that US and El Salvador could be the only countries following this policy, and then the impact would be again not so overwhelming.

For mass/retail adoption, in contrast, I believe Trump's other announcements about Bitcoin at least are neutral.

Bitcoin will be fine regardless of which of these clowns wins but I still prefer a hands-off approach. The laws with which they are trying to regulate Bitcoin and crypto are antiquated and are often misapplied to legitimate services. As dumb as I think NFTs are, it is ridiculous they are trying to make the argument that pictures of apes are securities.

The sanctions against a piece of software, Tornado Cash, and the arrest of their developers is also an abuse of power. This is not only something that affects altcoins, it affects privacy in general. We already saw the Samourai developers arrested for money laundering and being an unregistered money transmitter. It is also not just isolated to the United States because centralized businesses around the world are forced into compliance through coercion and intimidation by regulators.

I would rather agree. I was thinking the opposite. Let's imagine Trump wins and everyone expects the price of bitcoin to go to the moon because he announced he would make pro-bitcoin policies and create a reserve with seized bitcoin.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite happens, which is what usually happens in the markets. It would be the ideal scenario for retail investors to be fleeced by big players.

And looking at the opposite case, I don't think that just because Kamala wins, it will be catastrophic for bitcoin, as you suggest.

I saw some people saying that these 'crypto news sites' that we always hear about, that many of them just pull price predictions out of their arse, if they are not using a lot of technical analysis. So it's mainly a lot of guesswork in telling people the Bitcoin price because you either want the price to go up/down or you want to make people influence something so the price doesn't go that direction.

It's great to see that Bitcoin is able to make a noise in presidential election of US. Honestly US is known as land of opportunity. It has always thrived on innovation. But their approach is different on crypto related matters.

I understand that United States holds only 4% of the world population. But the major point of concern is that, US is also a crypto mining powerhouse of the world. So it is important to have a government who is friendly to cryptocurrency.

I believe that's exactly where it is making noise and that's why we all are interested to see a favourable election for cryptocurrency.

I am sure that Bitcoin will be fine if Kamala Harris wins the election. But in the world of politics, anything and everything can happen!

But no one know how much they own, there's a possibility 4% of them own 90% of Bitcoin, of course it's just my own speculation.

Definitely the no one can destroy the network and the communities because they're no the miners, they also can't change what people are doing. But, they can accumulate as much as they can and confiscate other people coins. So, they're not trying to control the network, instead they can control the coins.

I also don’t like the fact that everything about bitcoin is always attached to the US, how can one country be having so much effect on something that is to be used globally. I may not be too dip in economics but I don’t like the fact that it’s always like that. They may be reasons for that and why they’re the pioneer of it but let there be some exceptions to the level of their influence on certain things. We can’t because of 4% of the world population staying they don’t want it and we’ll all follow their suit too, it doesn’t make sense to me. Let bitcoin prevail and continue to thrive irrespective of who wins the US elections that’s what I am clamouring for.

I have already written several times that it doesn't really matter which candidate will win when it comes to Bitcoin or altcoins, things will continue as usual because politicians will have much more important work than dealing with something that most of them actually consider a trivial issue.

Of course, the influence that various individuals and companies in the US have on Bitcoin should not be ignored, but it is still a country where people have brought business to perfection, and the fact that some others did not recognize the "opportunity" is a completely different topic.

I haven't really read or seen any articles where Kamala Harris said she will not support Bitcoin. Irrespective of the outcome of the US election Bitcoin will be fine. So whatever speculation of bitcoin going down if Kamala wins is totally baseless. And you are right, as these people are just trying to overestimate US influence in bitcoin and I think it's not really unnecessary. This is just another strategy to manipulate the market. If eventually Kamala wins people will start panic selling while the whales buy it. Bitcoin will be Bitcoin even with Kamala being US president.

They only make up 4% of the world's population but their GDP accounts for nearly 30% of global GDP, the US financial market capitalization is over $50 trillion, which means they dominate nearly 50% of the global financial market...Those are not small numbers and their impact is not small.

Bitcoin will be fine no matter who wins the election but the point is if we have an open government with more bitcoin friendly policies then its development will happen faster and smoother. Meanwhile, if we have a government that is not open and comes up with harsher policies, the development of bitcoin will be slowed down somewhat.
I don't see anyone saying bitcoin will die or not be okay if the US has a president who is not crypto friendly, people are in need of a government that supports it for adoption to happen faster.

Bitcoin does not depend on a single individual to thrive so whoever wins the election, bitcoin will always be fine. However, there are people that have the capacity to inject instant momentum to the market leading to appreciable rise even though there could corrections later in time. Weather we like it or not, Trump have appear like pro-bitcoin so a victory for him will see the price of bitcoin surge and possibly creating new price history. On the other hand, if Kamala Harris wins, there could be immediate decline in price because it will resume the upward move if bullish momentum is dominant. I'm saying base on the general sentiment of the bitcoin community.

I've read many posts and topics about the coming US election on this forum and I don't remember where it is said that Bitcoin won't be fine once Kamala Harris wins the presidential sit, all I can remember is that people are complaining about how harder things will get with regulations and the SEC chairman will have more power to probably misbehave even more.

I am against Kamala because of those behind her, Joe Biden for example said that Bitcoin miners in the United States are spies trying to expose secrets to the outside world, this pissed me off to the core, this man is trying to make Bitcoin mining look like national threat

There will be similar issues once Kamala gets into the office, she knows nothing about Bitcoin and crypto either, she is probably going to be Joe Biden 2.0, I know Bitcoin will survive but what about miners in the U.S? Some peoples lives are around this Bitcoin mining, will they have to leave the U.S for their business?

I, who am outside the US, am also looking forward to this political battle and want to see who will take the podium in the White House later. But for now, Crypto, especially Bitcoin, is still being shaken by both parties in order to split the vote. I leave it all to the Bitcoin community in the US because we can only watch it from afar. But when the final results are out, I hope everyone will come back together, the political season is only temporary while the future of Bitcoin is the main thing for the next generation.

I wish I could agree with you but I think I do not.  Vast majority of the voters do not care about the key issues of their own Country but about small details that are often worthless and useless too.  If they were to vote with the candidate who was looking for solutions to the key issues, they would have had the issues solved already long ago.

Politicians care about Bitcoin too, they only pretend they do not.  But they obviously do not care about it as in they want to help it out and support it, but the opposite.  And it often shows.  Trump has found this to be a great way to attract many more voters toward him, and you can see how many would vote Trump ONLY for his stance on Bitcoin.  And this shows that a lot of voters mostly care for their own benefits, not for the country as a whole.

I completely agree with you and it is true in all countries with freedom or dictatorship. People usually don't care about politics, policies or they care of such but fail to realize facts and issues that are existing in their country and are affecting their lives. If they fail at very first steps, they will continue living with same issues and even more new problems, live conditions will become worse.

Politicians, businessmen are hard to trust and their stance can change with time. Nothing wrong to change your opinion because world spins, everything in life and society so if you won't change with time, you fail.

Frankly, only American citizens care about this election because it will decide the future of their country for the next 4 years. The rest of us (non-US citizens) only care about bitcoin and not about any presidential candidates. Everyone has the same concerns about the positive and negative impact of this election on bitcoin, but they have different views on politics so there are disagreements and temporary divisions. But I am sure that when the election is over, people will continue to unite together as if nothing happened because our ultimate goal is bitcoin.

You just kill the bears(market speculators that are bearish and Trump men that are pushing Bitcoin). The funny thing about this thing is that Bitcoin was there before Trump and Biden administration and there impact on economy didn't really impact Bitcoin positively. Trump was against Bitcoin throughout his tenure and Biden was trying the whole time to regulate Bitcoin and Bitcoin is still trading at $58k, the worst has happened and nothing is new under the sun that we have not seen.

Trump is clearly using everyone to get what he want, he is like if you don't vote me and Kamala get into office, your Bitcoin will be taken away and I ask the question. Why has Biden not taken it all this years? Huh! Biden wasn't really having attention of government until people like Trump political push Bitcoin as a tool for his campaign and I'm against that, do your campaign but don't use Bitcoin for political movement, that's limping.

Harris is not actually a threat for bitcoin. It's just that people are only speculating since the other presidential candidate is having a pro-crypto stance so most likely, this Harris is on the opposite side following the path of Biden.

But in reality, we can't be certain what would be Harris approach to crypto particularly bitcoin if ever she'll win the election. She can no longer pull down bitcoin now knowing a lot already have been starting to be aware on how to take advantage of bitcoin whether it's for currency or a good store of value.

Yes, Bitcoin and the crypto world will be fine and run as usual, even though Kamala becomes president, but the development of Bitcoin and the crypto world can run better if she is not elected president. Although many people say that Trump is only using the Bitcoin community to become president, one thing that can be taken from what he said is that Bitcoin will be better if he becomes president. It does sound too sweet a promise, but he is still more realistic compared to candidates who rarely mention Bitcoin in their campaigns.

That you said it, Kamala does not reveal his stance on Bitcoin, she did not say that she will destroy the Bitcoin Industry or put a strict regulation on Bitcoin and its community.  All the people's worries are just speculation in their minds.  And even if Kamala stands against Bitcoin, I believe Bitcoin will be fine because Bitcoin is not a US-based company nor it is a company itself.  that is the beauty of decentralization, just like how the US authority struggles to shut down torrent activities on a p2p file-sharing platform.  Even though they arrested people who own torrent sites and shut down several platforms, torrenting is still on the go today.

As it stands, Bitcoin has grown so big globally that a single country's decision on Bitcoin would not affect its growth. So many times have countries that thought that stance on Bitcoin would affect the price; Bitcoin ended up proving those countries wrong that it will increase or decrease as it wants to; their stance towards her "negative or positive" doesn't matter, to define its future. The least that can happen is for the Bitcoin price to react to the country's decision on Bitcoin, but that will only be for a while, and it will be forgotten in a short time as nothing happened to the Bitcoin price. Therefore, whoever wins the American election this year won't stop or be the reason for Bitcoin to skyrocket to a new ATH by next year because we already have the belief that it will soar by 2025. However, no need to worry about who becomes the president of the US, because neither Trump nor Harris can't change the fate of Bitcoin from soaring higher as anticipated to, next year

And remind me why people on Bitcointalk should care about dogeatcoin, memeoverkillcoin, pepelepepe coin?
One serious reason why any altcoin that gets pumped out of the you know what of their developer team should not be considered security when it fits every single detail of it, we complain all day long that the crypto world is full of rug pulls but god forbid we put some mechanism in places so shitshows that ended affecting even Bitcoin like the luna fiasco won't be possible anymore!


India has 12% but if we had the same news about crypto coming from the US we would be now cheering for $10000.
Population doesn't matter, even GDP is not a true indicator, 10000 people might have enough money for a bowl of rice a day while one guy making that much could afford to DCA $1000 a day, disposable income or total wealth should be more meaningful, and that's where the US has a 30% share of the world.


The influence is there, Bitcoin being banned in the US would mean backward 10 years, not counting the ripple effects.
But the thing is that is just fearmongering from the orange guy to get votes, unless you vote for me, it's the end of your crypto savings, nothing more.

I get what you mean but I some what disagree.

While The United States alone will not put Bitcoin down on its knees, remember a lot of the largest Bitcoin businesses are running a lot of their stuff on the territory of the United States.  More over, a ton of Money is being allocated toward Cryptocurrencies over there and while they do not have God like powers, they can influence the entire world through even one single decision they make.

A leadership that is against Bitcoin could damage it for a while.  It can not be killed, but it can be scratched and healed.  China has changed their mind on banning or not banning Bitcoin so many times it is not even a surprise any more when they switch the flip again.  The United States has never had a very harsh or idiotic approach toward Bitcoin, so having that for the first time could change how things go for Bitcoin.

Even if the US was to ban mining (the Warren AML law project would be a "de facto" ban because it would simply not be fulfillable by miners) miners would simply rearrange in other countries. Some Chinese miners are said to be still active via VPN, even if mining is banned there. Technically Bitcoin would be fine after a few difficulty adjustments, just like in 2021 - 2021 was even worse than an US ban would be because the Chinese mining sector had more than 50% of the world's hashrate back then.

It could still have an impact as some US mining companies are now publicly traded, and their stocks going down the drain would for sure also pull the Bitcoin price down. However, as at least some of these companies are also selling other datacenter services (cloud, AI ...) they would not necessarily disappear. In general I'd expect consequences to be similar to the 2021 Chinese mining ban, i.e. a likely price drop but then normalization.

I've waited for this argument :)

My point here is actually that the US is a major part of the present of Bitcoin's adoption, but the future depends more on the development in other countries. The EU for example has only a slightly smaller economy than the US but the crypto penetration there is lower and has thus more possible upside.

Then we have of course developing countries like India, where the GDP grows way faster than in the US. India is actually an interesting case because according to estimations it has the most crypto users of all countries (90 million) but the Bitcoin sector is also being held back by high taxes and relatively strict regulations. And if China returns to a even slightly friendlier policy (e.g. allowing local exchanges again) that would also be much more impactful than any US government measure (besides of a complete ban perhaps, which I think would not be constitutional in the US).

I believe with "development" you mean its adoption? Because technical development is quite international already. And the US has strong enough guarantees in its constitution that open source programming cannot be punished (see also the Tornado Cash case, they had to find other reasons for the detention than just programming).

In terms of adoption, it is possible that a crypto-friendly government can help with that locally. But even in El Salvador adoption isn't much more widespread than in other Latin American countries. As I wrote in the OP already, the US has a quite high adoption already with 15-20% of the population having held crypto (not necessarily Bitcoin).

A complete US ban would indeed be quite a heavy hit. But I believe this to be impossible due to the US having quite good protections of basic human rights (free speech for example could be used as an argument against a crypto ban), even if the government or Congress was willing to ban it it wouldn't be easy. And the 50 million crypto holders are quite an argument to not even try it.

Bitcoin will continue to work as intended regardless of who wins the election in November. I don’t think there is any doubt though that the market will react more kindly in the short term if Trump wins. It’s public knowledge that he & the Republicans are vocally more positive about Bitcoin that the Democrats with Elizabeth Warren ‘and her goons.’

You raise a fair point - we shouldn't assume Bitcoin will tank if Kamala wins just because Trump is friendly towards crypto.  Bitcoin has shown itself to be resilient no matter who's in power. 

While the US is an important player in the global crypto landscape, it is still only one piece of the pie and  bitcoin has spread far and wide around the world at this point.  Even if US policies shift, it likely wont spell doom for Bitcoin given its decentralized nature and broadening userbase. 

I suppose the bottom line is that Bitcoin seems capable of rolling with the political punches.  Its value lies in its permissionless and borderless qualities - qualities that no administration can easily undermine through regulation alone.  Bitcoin will likely keep on keeping on, regardless of what happens this November.

Even Harris knows the amount of support bitcoin has in the US and the sway Black Rock and other ETF owners have in Congress. The ban is out of the question, but various limitations, especially for miners and private holders (KYC wallets) definitely are. Democrats know they can't simply ban bitcoin but they can make it as inconvenient to hold as possible and that's their goal.

Bitcoin itself will be fine if she wins, but ths simple fact that she wants to promote Gensler, who was instrumental in delaying bitcoin ETFs and threatening various exchanges and altcoin operators like Ripple is something to think about. Why Gensler, who was proven to be incompetent in Congress and grilled for losing in court inf not for the fact that he's well known for fighting cryptocurrencies? Same cryptocurrencies Trump has warmed up towards in the last few months?

It's not just any and any how elections, the US government election, and who occupies the presidential seat have always left a concern and debate of their influence on bitcoin; this should be because of them being among the countries with the largest economies. 
 
Nevertheless, it's just a matter of us knowing what we stand for and the kind of support we should give to Bitcoin. People just pay so much attention to things that will matter little to Bitcoin. Kamala might not even be a pain in the ass of bitcoin; it could just be a neutral ground.

Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy has gotten the attention of crypto supporters since he has promised them a favourable regulations and Bitcoin reserve,also promise to remove SEC Chair Gray Gensler who is always criticize the Crypto Industry whereas Kamala Harris is set on resetting the crypto regulations which may not be good at all for crypto,it's obvious that she will be adopting Biden's stronger stance on crypto regulations.


https://coingape.com/crypto-political-donations-hit-190m-how-will-upcoming-elections-impact-industry/

I totally agree with you. People are often misled by news outlets, believing that if Harris wins, she won’t do anything positive for the crypto industry. Many think Operation Choke Point was initiated by Biden, and since Harris is part of his administration, they assume she won’t address it. However, Harris might not have the power to act on these issues yet, especially since Biden has withdrawn from the presidential race. Consequently, people might think Kamala will be competing against Trump from Biden’s side.

Personally, I believe Harris could make positive contributions to the crypto field. I also prefer her to win over Trump for various reasons, though I understand this is a personal opinion and not a question you asked. I’m not a U.S. citizen and don’t have a vote, but I find Trump’s statements and actions to be somewhat exaggerated and doubt he will fulfill many of his promises. Apologies if this offends any supporters, it’s merely an observation, not a personal attack. Let’s wait and see how things unfold.

I can't speak for the American voters but I think they care enough about immigration issues which are now associated with national security, rising cost of living, inflation, tax cuts, foreign wars and conflicts that the country is involved in, abortion, and so on and so forth.

Despite that, however, I guess most of us don't trust politicians and their false promises. Although we care about the key issues discussed, we're not expecting so much from them. We won't be surprised if the problems persist beyond their terms.


I honestly think they don't care about Bitcoin. They've grown rich and powerful with fiat, although they care about reaching out to all communities big and small to earn votes and win.

While I agree that many voters mostly care about themselves, I don't think many would vote for Trump solely because of his Bitcoin stance. That he claims to be a Bitcoin supporter may be a big factor to some but I don't think it's the only factor. In which case, I won't be surprised if there are Bitcoin supporters who don't even vote for him.

I agree, Bitcoin will be fine whether Trump or Kamala Harris wins, it may be better if Trump wins but it will not be worse if Kamala Harris wins. So there is no need for all these fears and exaggerations raised by some pessimists.

When Bitcoin was a weak child it continued to grow and flourish despite the intense hostility and rejection that it had at the beginning, so now that it has become a young man (so to speak) and has gained more momentum, strength and adoption, I do not expect it to be in a bad state at all.

Exactly. I think Americans are overplaying (as usual) their influence to the world. Yes, it is most likely that the market will be affected and certain regulations and policies implemented in the US regarding crypto may affect a lot of investors but to say that Harris winning will be the downfall of bitcoin is just silly and misleading.

Bitcoin should not have been involved in political wars in the first place and it seems like Trump’s team as well as his supporters are using crypto to motivate (more like scare) people into voting for him. Time and time again, I have mentioned that while Trump may have publicly supported bitcoin and crypto we don’t actually know if he will stay true to his words. Trump is not the only leader in the world. If he wins and does good by crypto then cheers to our American investors and crypto enthusiasts but don’t expect that bitcoin will reach new ath just because he was elected president. It won’t work like that.

Whoever wins, Bitcoin will be fine.

Bitcoin will be fine with either Trump or Kamala in charge as a President.

Let's make it viral to prevent Kamala Harris gets votes and becomes a next President.

If Kamala gets elected, "Bitcoin will be grown up a middle class kid..." ya know. It's what Kamala repeatedly answered about any question about her plans on economy and by repeating the non-sense answer, she shown that she has no plan, even no concept of plan for economy.

But forget about her, she won't be able to kill Bitcoin or stop its growth.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-signals-interest-friendlier-203059869.html)
2. BankThink Kamala Harris has an opportunity to make crypto better for consumers (https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/kamala-harris-has-an-opportunity-to-make-crypto-better-for-consumers)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To be fair: Bitcoin is fine under Biden despite his unfriendly stance towards it. So if Harris is elected, there probably won't be too many challenges and difficulties for bitcoin even if she doesn't want to appear friendly to bitcoin. But if we had a pro-bitcoin president things would be much better.

Which candidate to vote for will be up to each person's choice because each person has different issues, not just bitcoin. So we should stop criticizing each other just because we have different choices and instead respect everyone's decisions.

There is no guarantee that Trump actually supports bitcoin, and there is no guarantee that Harris hates it and would seek to hinder its growth if elected. Because the election is not over yet and we still don't know what they will do after they are elected, everything is still a mystery. So no matter who we vote for, let's hope that if they win, they'll be more open to bitcoin.

That in itself says enough about how much people understand what is happening in the world, because if they did, they wouldn't want someone with as many as 37 indictments to become the president - and psychiatrists, not politicians or ordinary people, could talk about the ideas he promotes. I'm not a big fan of KH, but I would always choose the lesser of two evils - regardless of whether the greater evil would be better for BTC (which I honestly doubt).

There is a local forum that's very popular in my country and people often discuss things, like on Bitcointalk. Will you believe if I say that the government invests lots of money and creates bots to spread the misinformation? They even pay people to post good about the government. Of course, that's done unofficially but that's a very known fact among users. Don't you think that there won't be a similar situation on Bitcointalk too? Modern politicians understand the power of the virtual world, it's a great place to gain the attention of people with fewer expenses.
I believe that Trump will have bots all over the internet and some of them might be on this forum too. There is a chance for Trump to gain some % of votes by promoting the fact that Bitcoin will rise if Trump becomes the president. In some families, kids might push parents to vote for Trump for this reason, some Bitcoin enthusiasts will vote for him to gain profit on their investments and etc...

I personally believe that Bitcoin will rise with or without Trump and Harris. If they don't ban it and don't set sanctions, then Bitcoin will do everything well on its own.

Donald Trump's supporters claim that if Donald Trump wins the election, Bitcoin will definitely go higher than ever. Kamala Harris supporters claim that if Kamala Harris wins the polls, Bitcoin will be in a better position than before.

Those of us who basically love Bitcoin basically want the candidate who basically loves Bitcoin to win the vote.

I must say I like your disposition here, you are one of the few who thought outside the bracket and beyond the hype some bigots use which has clouded the thought and judgment of many. First, to me, Biden is not anti-crypto, no US president has been, what his administration does is regulate crypto and I see nothing wrong with that.

Also, Trump is not a messiah of crypto, someone who had condemned crypto in many cases in the past and doesn't even have a sizable amount to prove his true support for it suddenly becomes the advocate for it. Don't you think it's because of the election? He always looks for where and how to sell as a businessman, so he imbibes it now in politics, nothing less. But I don't know why people are not seeing this, more reason the crypto market refuses to react in his honour because the market is not gullible like most people.

However, if Trump becomes the US president today, he will change nothing this administration has done and will rather regulate crypto more, mark my word. I see no difference with when Harris becomes the US president, the exception is that Trump is only lousy and looking for all means to cause division and attract more supporters through the created and existing division at different sectors and works of life.

This is an indicator of how overrated the roles of candidates/presidents are on bitcoin. It seems you all forgot about the decentralization and independence of the BTC-network.

The dominance of the US with 4% of the world population owning bitcoinis due to the surplus of capital/money (thank you, endless printing press), allowing these investments to be "poured" into bitcoin. When people have little money, then what kind of purchase of bitcoin can we talk about?

This is pure speculation, rocking the boat of the cryptomarket and the influence of the US\Harris is overestimated. Since when did this start happening? If the world economy depends on the US economy, then now the cryptoeconomy is becoming dependent on the US?

It seems to me that if Trump won, the cryptocurrency market would be more relieved or less pressured by the government. While if Kamala Harris wins, the crypto market will be under more pressure from the government. But that doesn't mean we'll see radical changes like a bitcoin ban. In practice, not much will have changed since the time of bitcoin. It would be something like a continuation of Biden's stance on bitcoin. Seeing these latest articles:

Sep 11, 2024

Choke Point 2.0 is hurting Kamala Harris' 'crypto reset' (https://cointelegraph.com/news/choke-point-continues-to-hurt-kamala-harris-crypto-reset)

Sep 12, 2024

Crypto stocks recover from dip as polls say Harris won debate against Trump (https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-stocks-recover-dip-polls-say-harris-won-debate)

Sep 13, 2024

Trump to launch World Liberty Financial crypto platform on Sept. 16
 (https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-crypto-project-world-liberty-financial-launch-monday)

They show that I'm right. I already had this opinion before reading these articles. Now, I don't see Trump's ideas as being good in some points. Like his stance on the war in Ukraine, he's putting himself in a position that seems to support Russia. Honestly, that's not a good stance.

Probably those who said that Bitcoin will fall to $30,000 are those anti-Bitcoin or at least the ones who are following Peter Schiff all the way.
Bitcoin will fall to $30,000... only after the bull market. It will only touch that price when we enter the bear market.

Those are completely baseless prediction and Bitcoin will be fine like what the OP said. I mean Biden, who is against cryptocurrency didn't have that much effect towards the price, and adoption of Bitcoin. In fact, we've seen ETF's being approved during his administration. As for Trump or Harris, Bitcoin don't need the two of them as much as the two of them needs Bitcoin in order for them to win in the presidential election. Bitcoin will be just fine no matter who wins in the election. The US might be a superpower, but they have little effect when it comes to Bitcoin and it's price.

Bitcoin will thrive like it always be. ;)

It's even possible if Trump wins that despite a friendly crypto policy, things turn out bearish or harmful for Bitcoin due to bad decisions in other fields of politics.

An example could be international tensions intensifying because of bad decisions in foreign policy, may it be in the Middle East or regarding Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Or in general protectionist measures leading to a commercial conflict, above all with China.

International tensions have often led to significant Bitcoin dips, even in recent times. The reason is actually quite simple: if the world looks unsafe and unpredictable, you won't be so much interested in a risk asset investment. It's even possible that the Ukraine war intensified the 2022 bear market due to this effect.

That's of course only a possibility. It can also turn out that a possible Trump tenure becomes bullish for Bitcoin even if such bad decisions create damage to the US and/or the world's economy. It's not impossible that people will view Bitcoin increasingly as a gold alternative (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5507640.0) as its success doesn't depend that much on economic activity as stocks and other traditional assets. However, we currently seem to be far away from that outcome, a downturn on major markets still often influences Bitcoin's price negatively like we saw in the August Nikkei-induced dip.

In my country political bots are also a rampant problem, regardless the political party (there was a government change in 2023), all governments in charge since 2012/13 or so, and also several opposition parties, invested a lot in bots, above all on X/Twitter.

It could of course be the case that such bots could intensify FOMO in the Bitcoin community in the case Trump wins, and thus the price can indeed jump to the upside. However, if no substantial policy changes which benefit Bitcoin adoption occur afterwards, then this jump probably will be short-lived.

There is an opinion that the Democrats led by Kamala Harris are active supporters of the promotion of the digital dollar (CBDC). At the same time, the digital dollar is a concept that implies complete control over the financial flows of citizens and organizations.

In fact, this is a concept of building a digital concentration camp on the territory of the country.

The concept of the US digital dollar is essentially antagonistic to the concept of Bitcoin (as a decentralized universal protocol for transferring value in the virtual space).

If this is so, then even if Kamala Harris verbally supports Bitcoin, in fact, after her election, she will in every possible way hinder its free development.

I don't like Donald for a number of reasons but I will not say my vote will go to Kamala just because I don't like Donald, even if his winning will pump the market (there is a big if here). I don't know much about Kamala, but she should be talking about crypto and what her policies and roadmap for crypto is going to be. Once she shares her future plans for crypto,, then I will support Kamala oh I forgot I can't vote haha.

Donald speaks for different sides, he is not a man of words I think I mean he agrees with the ban of gun and on the other side he is saying to the opposite people that he will not lose the law. Same in front of people who care for Palestine he is promising to help them and on the other side people don't like the Palestine situation, he is promising to help Israel. I mean who does that.

Either Trump or Kamala wins the result might still go the same. Since so far both of them is not really friendly towards bitcoin. They are just using this to gather attention but later on they provably dump those promises they made.

Although in case of Kamala they don't talk much about bitcoin so there's huge chance that they would rather push the CBDC rather than bitcoin since for so many years their party is not so friendly with those coins and its expected that they push their personal interest rather than those things that can bother them.

So again let see what will happen under their term if they allow bitcoin or put another restriction on bitcoin.

I like the point you brought out about the US being only 4% of the world population, that's a good one!!
With or without the west, bitcoin shall live on and it won't stop for anyone and for all we know. And  Bitcoin being a new technology of tomorrow, I don't think the US would want to be left out of this party if at all it wants to remain the super power it is...so should Kamala or anybody else get to be POTUS bitcoin is in safe hand's, thats for sure!

The US population is really only 4 percent of the world's population.

However, the US is a superpower, and the US dollar is the world's reserve currency. The US power is backed by its aircraft carriers, intellectual property, universities, and influential corporations.

The US seeks to control all global financial flows. If even one American suffers financially anywhere, the US will pursue the perpetrators in any jurisdiction on our planet.

If the US really wants to destroy Bitcoin, it will be a huge blow to the first cryptocurrency...

Here, in my opinion, we also need to take into account that most mining and cryptocurrency companies are currently located in the US.

At the same time, we do not know what actions Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will take regarding Bitcoin after their election as US president. Pre-election rhetoric is one thing, but real actions after the presidential elections are quite another ...

This depends on how the digital dollar is implemented. If CBDCs were mandatory for every citizen and not only cash but also bank transfers and other payment solutions would be banned, then you would be right. But I consider this extremely unlikely. This would harm the banking sector strongly: they would have to shrink their business model basically to credit/risk management and speculation. And cash will probably also not be banned because this measure would be too unpopular.

That's why for example in the EU the "digital euro" (it is not decided still if it will be implemented but there is investigation ongoing) is meant simply as a central-bank controlled additional "account" citizens can use if they want, but aren't forced to use.

I read however that in Nigeria for example the case was different and the government wanted really to enforce the CBDC by restricting cryptos in parallel (the ban, which was limited to financial institutions, was lifted in early 2024 though). But Nigeria is a much more authoritarian country than the US. And even in China, which is even more authoritarian, CBDC usage is voluntary and seems even to be relatively unpopular.

Thus also Bitcoin would not be affected per se by a CBDC, only if its introduction was done like in Nigeria with parallel restrictions for cryptos.

This is what the ECB is communicating at the moment, but it is not excluded that at some point they will change their mind and switch completely to the digital euro. When you look at some decisions of EU bureaucrats, then nothing should surprise you - for example, when they decided to ban the 500 EUR banknote because, according to them, it was used by terrorists, and that later turned out to be real nonsense.


I think that the term "voluntarily" in China should be looked at from a different angle, because when the CP says that something should be used, then they actually think that you should use it, because otherwise you are showing that you think you are smarter than the CP, and that is not nothing positive for personal health. China wants as many people as possible to start using CBDC as soon as possible because it is part of their strategy of absolute control.

The only thing that can guarantee a negative impact on the value of Bitcoin is a new stranglehold on it by the new president.
Other political events will have no impact, as the value of bitcoin is a completely speculative indicator.
It can be influenced by not very many events from the real world, such as the rise in the value of the dollar or gold, everything else will not be able to noticeably affect it

The 500 banknote ban was a relatively minor change. A massive centralization of payment methods to a single digital currency would be a move the EU or any other democratic state/currency area would not survive probably. Not only they would drastically harm the domestic banking sector but also probably political forces seeking to preserve cash and other methods would gain prominence. Perhaps it would even popularize cryptocurrencies even more.

My point is however another one. Of course an authority can misbehave. But an introduction of a CBDC can be done in a way it could be even positive for citizens, at least if you don't believe in an ultra-maximalist scenario where fiat would collapse and everybody only use Bitcoin for everything.

The Venezuelan Petro was originally conceived by an independent programmer. His idea was to create a blockchain-based and decentralized digital currency, very much like Bitcoin, and the government intervention would only consist in providing a pegging mechanism with oil-based derivatives, but no control over validation. Basically, it would have been a "government-backed Tether".

But as we know the Venezuelan authorities didn't want this to happen this way and wanted more control. So they created a totally centralized system which failed miserably.

If Maduro's regime wasn't so stubbornly authoritarian and "control-freak-y" they could have prevented the failure and perhaps would be even popular now.


That may be the case but people simply are using the e-CNY much less than predicted.

Source: MIT technology review (https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/08/03/1077181/whats-next-for-chinas-digital-currency/).

It is officially still in the "testing" stage so the current situation may be misleading, but it seems there is no clear path to acceptance, even in an authoritarian country like China. In a democracy like the US with strong constitutional guarantees I see even less chances to "enforce" the use of a CBDC.

Do not forget that the United States has larger influence on Bitcoin that the other countries. It may look like Bitcoin could excel without the support of the United States but do not forget that once the US put a ban in Bitcoin, it will continue by other NATO countries which might do the same influencing them that Bitcoin is not safe to hold or to be supported by the government. Harris might have to consider the crypto space with time if eventually she wins but the support might not be compared to what we could see if Donald Trump eventually wins. We all hope for the best outcome that would support the existence of cryptocurrency from either of the two candidates.

I highly agree, that many countries are stereotyping what the United States is doing, may it be the internal policy, foreign policy, or the relation with other country.  So, I also think that once the US bans Bitcoin, its alliance country will soon follow through.

But I do not think that Kamala will go beyond the ordinary means and ban Bitcoin totally. She might probably put regulations and laws that will benefit the United States on Bitcoin because her financial adviser will surely tell her that US will be missing out on a great opportunity if they totally ban Bitcoin.

Honestly, I don't like the US in many ways but I don't deny that their influence is too big in every field in the world, Bitcoin is also one of them.
Bitcoin ETFs are the clearest example of this, why is the entire crypto industry only interested in Bitcoin ETFs in the US when Bitcoin ETFs are already present in many other regions and countries? Look at the amount of money flowing into the market from US investors every day compared to other markets and we will see a huge difference, we cannot deny that. They are the number 1 power in the world, they are still the ones who decide the fate of the world economy, let alone a small market like bitcoin can escape their influence.

Don't underestimate their influence and luckily they didn't ban bitcoin in the early days. Otherwise, we would never have seen bitcoin grow to the extent it has today.

Nowadays, banning bitcoin has become an impossible task no matter who becomes president but they can limit its growth with policies that prevent people from investing in it.

Of course, whoever wins the election, they play a big role in determining the direction of policy for the growth of major economic issues but the public wants to see who is more pro BTC and which candidate is less concerned which ultimately could lead to a downward trend in the price of BTC.

Very good points overall, but if we want to be honest, for this one, we shouldn't be looking at the share of the global population but rather at the share of the global economy, which, for the US is estimated to be at around 25% (of World's GDP).
A million people from third-world countries, who don't have $10 to spare, even if excited about Bitcoin, will not have as much impact on the price (and that's what most here care about the most) as 1,000 Americans earning $100k or above.

India and China are countries with populations of over 1 billion people, but why can't bitcoin and cryptocurrencies be popular there and why aren't they the paradise of the world's financial industry? Or why is every financial market in the world influenced and dominated by the US market? Although bitcoin is a global currency, it is not a wise idea to rely on population percentage to judge their importance to bitcoin.

For people to be able to invest in bitcoin, they need income, knowledge, awareness…and in terms of all these factors, the US outperforms the rest of the world. We cannot deny their influence and role in the world financial industry, not just bitcoin.

Actually i find it weird how many people are hoping and praying that governments and leaders are doing the right things for it. It's like we are dependable on the government intervention, just to push the price to moon, and hell with the original idea of it.

And that why so many people don't seem to carem that we are now waiting price to be controlled by government blessing for it or banning it. I don't really have a solution or any scenario where it wouldn't be, and i accept this development, knowing full well that that means i don't in my core really believe in decentralization, but i thought that more people would be worried about this.

Bitcoin should be not depending on any of that as the very reason it exists is because it was supposed to be resilient against government intervention. And now we are counting on presidents to pump the price? What happened? Why people suddenly want to be dependable of such actions? Only thing i can see that we are being just greedy over the use cases it was originally designed for.

I completely agree here.

In addition, if Bitcoin is close to an ideology then it's libertarianism/anarchism, and none of the big US parties are even close to these ideologies. Some say Trump is close to a libertarian ideology, but "libertarian" would also mean to open the borders to allow the free flow of human capital ;D (Racism is actually one of the most anti-libertarian things that exist.) Some other things Libertarians like Rothbard advocated for are actually the opposite of what Republicans want, even Democrats are closer in some areas (e.g. pro-choice, or in general restrictions and prohibitions, with the exceptions of weapons ...). But Democrats are of course also far away from libertarian/anarchist principles.


The explanation for this behaviour is for sure the current actual user base, composed mainly by speculative investors. I'm sure the large majority of those who are supporting an US Bitcoin reserve like Trump has announced it, would love to cash out at let's say $500k and go away.

The optimist interpretation of that behavior is that it is a consequence of the strong growth of Bitcoin in recent years. Above all after 2020 I believe many were lured in by influencers promising then high returns, and some (those who invested in the correct moment) got what they had been promised, or they are close to get it, and thus they want more.

In this case, there's still a chance that each year some of these new investor groups fall down the rabbit hole, appreciating Bitcoin's original "values" and understand its unique value propositions, all related to concepts like censorship resistance. And that in the long term, we see a slow growth of "value-oriented" Bitcoiners.

Most of the people that jumped on the Bitcoin bandwagon in the recent years are much more concerned about the price. So the idea is:

Trump wins => Price go up and stay up (see using Bitcoin to back US national reserves)

Kamala => Price goes down + unfavorable policies.

Bitcoin was created to be independent of government control providing a permissionless way to make transactions and that is what I came to love about Bitcoin when I first learnt about it. Even paypal wasn't allowing payments to my country but Bitcoin welcomed everyone.

Harris finally mentioned cryptocurrencies in her latest statement, and this is the first time she has mentioned cryptocurrencies in her campaign: she said her administration would encourage technologies like AI and digital assets, while protecting consumers and investors.

Although nothing too impressive and we don't know exactly what her intentions are and what she will do if elected. But I don't deny that this is the most positive sign since the election so far because she has largely ignored and disinterested in everything related to crypto.

Many people were worried that bitcoin would face many obstacles if she won but with this news I hope she will change her mind and be more friendly to crypto. It doesn't matter who wins, what matters most is the growth of bitcoin and the cryptocurrency industry.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/09/23/gY1IT.png

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/09/23/gYhU1.png

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-22/harris-vows-to-grow-ai-crypto-industries-in-pitch-to-nyc-donors?srnd=energy

Kamala Harris has finally breaks silence on crypto:
She has spoken publicly about crypto for the first time, pledging support for the industry while stressing consumer protections.
She also said they will partner together with cryptocurrency to invest in America’s competitiveness and invest in America’s future.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/kamala-harris-finally-breaks-silence-crypto-during-fundraiser

Kamala may not be as pro-crypto as Trump looks like, it's obvious that Trump "acts" more pro-crypto and I am sure that he is, but of course that depends on the love he gets. That's the difference between the two, crypto people could love or hate Kamala and yet she will just keep doing the right thing she should be doing and that's following the law.

However, it matters if crypto people like or hate Trump because if crypto people love Trump then he will do more than he can and pressure other government agencies to just put some favourable rulings against crypto and promote it, but IF crypto people dislike him? He will go as far as trying to ban it completely. That dude works on emotions and nothing else so it's quite fun to see him go mad when he doesn't get love, that happened with many things before and I think it's expected that we are seeing him change his views depending on how much love he gets and he finds whatever the maximum amount he could be praised as his stance, so it constantly changes.

Donald Trump has literally started campaigning on Bitcoin and is promising all kinds of Bitcoin development. But time will tell what kind of action will be taken on Bitcoin after coming to power. However, Kamala Harris has not made any promises on Bitcoin in the run-up to the election, but she has also been wary of crypto-currencies for quite some time now. However, two candidates are very serious about cryptocurrencies.

I agree, I really don't see Kamala winning having any sort of large impact on bitcoin or the price of bitcoin.  It just like with every presidential election people tend to over-blow how much of an impact things really will have when a new president makes it in to office.  The is especially seen in the stock markets and something I heard all of the time in my job.  The data back up that it's really not the case, that the Presidents don't do "damage" as much as some thing they will.

Could a Harris victory even be better for Bitcoin than a Trump victory?

G Clay Miller, a Democrat who is campaigning for the Crypto4Harris project wrote recently an article on Coindesk (https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2024/09/26/how-a-harris-opportunity-economy-will-benefit-the-crypto-industry/) explaining possible reasons:

- Trump didn't act at all crypto-friendly in his tenure from 2016 to 2020, he even started "Operation Hidden Treasure", a pre-coursor to Chokepoint 2.0. His "180 degree turn" is at least dubious.
- Trump doesn't understand that Bitcoin is decentralized, he wants to "Americanize" it by government action - as if Bitcoin was some US state enterprise, lol.
- Trump's move can be explained as an attempt to attract donors like the Winklevii Twins.
- Harris' educational proposals could increase innovations in technology by young Americans, including blockchain/Bitcoin.
- Harris proposes startup credits, which also could help the crypto industry.
- Harris' past as a districtal attorney makes it more likely that she's interested in the rule of law, with predictable and stable regulations also for the crypto industry.

I disagree a bit with the first point. I would not be surprised if Trump (if he wins) would indeed introduce some crypto-friendly regulations, otherwise he risks losing popularity with about 50 million voters. But the second point is completely true, Trump proposes things he can't really influence as a president. For example, Miller already mentioned that he proposes to fire Gensler from the SEC, something the president simply can't do according to American laws.

Regarding the Harris proposals, I think the connection between them and a healthy Bitcoin ecosystem is a bit vague. I can see some potential, but I doubt it will define Bitcoin's success or not.

So my stance holds: I think it will be nearly irrelevant who wins the US presidential election. In neither case I expect actions so hostile that they could harm Bitcoin's adoption.

Listen I agree with you, Bitcoin is decentralised anyways, even if the US doesn't support it, or the Democratic party releases policies that are not supportive or in favour of cryptocurrency, nothing will kill Bitcoin. It's just good that Bitcoin is getting any kind of media attention with Trump. Any publicity is good.

What made you decide that Kamala doesn't pay attention to the crypto sector? There's nothing special about it now, but right before the elections, there will be such loud cries about crypto that your ears will start to curl up.

I want to emphasize that Trump is more of a populist than a man of real action. Yes, of course, he signed some laws, but what about Bitcoin? Will there be concrete steps in the legislative field?

Trump has absolutely no idea what Bitcoin is, he doesn't even know how to pay with it and asks others for assistance. He has no idea about promises that he throws away.

lol, that's so true :D He is just a populist, he thinks that he is doing good by promising Bitcoin users that the rest of the Bitcoins will be mined in the USA but in reality, all he does is that every Bitcoin enthusiasts sees how fake he is with his promises and how he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Harris and education? He doesn't know what Cloud Storage is, check this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2SLyBL2kdM
I don't like the idea of uniting Harris and Education together :D

It doesn't make anything more likely to be honest with you. Both candidates are one of the most terrible candidates on planet earth and it's a pity that the United States is in such a bad condition.
I definitely respect your opinion but honestly, that's what I think.

The list I posted was a summary of Miller's article on Coindesk. If you'd read the post until the end you would have seen that I don't agree with all of his points, or only partly. :)

Regarding the cloud storage video, the clip was obviously taken out of context. Here's the entire quote (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-cloud-storage/) (it's from 2010). Harris was not explaining the technical side of cloud storage but implications for an old privacy model from the Fourth Amendment, where everything privacy-related was explained with the analogy of a house.

"It's no longer in a physical place" is obviously wrong technically but it can be perfectly explained with the fact that cloud data normally is stored on several servers ("places") simultaneously, and from the point of view of an user, it's not longer in "your house".

Regardless of Kamala Harris' knowledge about technology/IT (something I can't evaluate), as a president she would not be in charge of the technical details of a tech-education policy. Not even her ministers (although from these I would expect at least a bit of detail knowledge). The real knowledge is normally at secretary level (i.e. one step below ministers in the hierarchy) and below.

A President has many ministers, many governmental staffs who are responsible technically to help him/ her and no person can know everything about finance, technology just because he or she is a President.

I am not focusing on it too technically but I think about it like this. Will Bitcoin be good or bad with Kamala Harris as a President of the United States?

Let's think about how the USA economy will be if Kamala Harris is the President?
I don't know what you think but I think the economy will be more terrible under her administration and because of big impacts of USA on the world, if its economy is terrible, in recession for example, the rest of world will be affected seriously too.

Will Bitcoin be fine in that scenario?
Maybe Bitcoin market will have very big shocks like what happened in Covid, after the WHO announcement that it is officially assessed as a pandemic, Bitcoin lost 40% or 50% of its price, I recall it from memory, not check details.

In long term, Bitcoin will be fine but in short term, we will have market massacre.

I agree with you and OP that if Harris is elected bitcoin will be fine, just like under Biden even though he doesn't seem friendly to it. But if we had a president who actually liked and supported bitcoin, things would be much better. We will be able to grow exponentially and I believe that as a bitcoin investor, no one does not wish for that. That is why people went crazy when bitcoin also became a topic of discussion among politicians in this year's elections and people started showing support for the candidates.

I have seen some predictions that bitcoin will crash if Harris wins and skyrocket if Trump wins but I don't believe that bullshit. No one can break bitcoin but between the choice of "fine" and "better", I don't think why we should choose "fine".

I agree Bitcoin will be absolutely fine it’s America that will be screwed under Harris 😂 that retarded laughing cunt witch. Anywho the US will face a less friendly furthering of adoption to crypto and Bitcoin under her and Timmy. For the love of God though I hope Trump wins just so that we can all be better off including Bitcoin lol

I'd like to know the reasons of this assumption. If you want you can explain them.

Under Trump (2016-20) we had the following numbers regarding GDP growth: 2.5% (2017), 3% (2018), 2.5% (2019) and -2.2 (2020).

Under Biden's tenure until now, we have (2021-23): 5.8% (2021), 1.9% (2022), and 2.5% (2023). Expectations for 2024 are also close to the 2-2.5% area.

(Source: World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US)).

Of course we need to ignore the years 2020 and 2021, because neither Trump nor Biden are the culprits of the COVID pandemic and the recovery in Biden's first year was also not entirely caused by his own merits. But in general, I see in both Trump's and Biden's tenures a "normal" evolution for the US economy, neither too strong nor too weak. Obama's two administrations had similar numbers, with the exception of his first year (2009) during the worldwide finance crisis, which of course was also not his fault because it started a year earlier.

If we assume that Harris continues Biden's policies, then the most rational prediction for 2025-29 is that the US economy continues its "normal" evolution, with growth rates roughly between 1,5% and 3%.

At least I see no catastrophic event on the horizon which could influence Bitcoin negatively.

When the political party changes, there is a big change in everything. Whatever Kamala Harris or Donald Trump comes to power will change things. Putting crypto currency as a positive and negative for a party will change the political turn and harm crypto. If someone really supports crypto and not just for political reasons then he will be far ahead of others.

Currently Trump's support for Bitcoin is definitely positive towards crypto. If he wins then as a crypto lover I will definitely support Trump. But I am worried about how positive these leaders will really be after coming to the power.

Things aren't that simple. "Supporting cryptocurrencies" doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying someone is supporting gold, that someone is pro-stocks or pro-money. Question is what pro-crypto would even look like and from whose point of view.

Regulations for crypto can be seen as pro-crypto by legitimizing it, however it does mean tougher laws for it. And only recently, with mandatory kycs and proof of money trails people are starting to grasp what that means when crypto goes mainstream. So long this has reminded of early days of internet, being as bad and unorganized as it was. Newcomers don't even realize where we were just under 10 years ago. When first big crypto exchanges after mtgox started exit scamming, no one actually believed that anyone would go to jail for that.

And broad framework for current crypto regulations and aml laws were created during Trump's last presidency, they have just been tested and evolved more since. I can pretty much guarantee that Trump didn't read anything related to it back then, and haven't read since.

Also how can trump be pro-crypto, when he obviously haven't got a clue what the whole concept is?

Although they are all financial markets, there are some differences: the gold market and the stock market are markets that have existed for hundreds of years and have reached maturity. Meanwhile, cryptocurrency is like a newborn baby and everything is still in its infancy, so it will need government support to mature. The gold and stock markets were able to mature as they are today thanks to government support, so bitcoin is no exception if we want it to develop like the other two markets.

What you say is not wrong but it is inevitable. Do you have any ideas to stop the government from interfering in the crypto industry? Do you have a solution to help bitcoin achieve global popularity and a market capitalization of tens of trillions of dollars like gold or stocks without the need for governments?


Do you think Harris knows everything about bitcoin?

I'll answer both to these, but i don't think that those are gonna be answers, that you are looking for.

The fact that people are seeking for government support for something, that drives the value from the very idea of being resilient against governments oversight... that is still mind-boggling to me.

I don't think the main goal of bitcoin should be more global popularity. That seems forced, as it's popular as hell already. Nor the main goal should be pumping value to it with the help of a government. Let bitcoin itself prove to be valuable, so it will get as valuable as markets want it to be.

Frankly i am not sure. But if i had to guess, she probably understands the basics on a same level as majority of cryptocurrency holders, which isn't much. But i definitely think that she would have capacity to understand it deeper, if/when ever she has time to dig into it. And unlike trump, she is able to listen experts and advisors, so it wouldn't take long for her to comprehend it.