Bitcoin Forum

https://www.tradingview.com/news/u_today:cf6e9e8c5094b:0-head-of-sec-that-s-job-i-would-take-pro-crypto-billionaire-mark-cuban/

Mark Cuban is a consistent pro-crypto champion and a huge donor to the Democrats and Harris. He can name his job if Harris wins the election--and he already has: he wants to replace Gary Gensler.

Trump, meanwhile, will almost undoubtedly hire a fellow convicted criminal to the post, and one who will prioritize Trump's own personal crypto businesses over Bitcoin and everything else. According to economic analysts, the US economy will do far better under Harris than it would under Trump:

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/09/04/goldman-saches-u-s--economy-kamala-harris-donald-trump

Part of the reason is that Trump is promising massive tariffs on all imported goods that will raise the price of almost everything in the US and destabilize the economy (which will force average consumer investors to sell their Bitcoin so they can pay the bills after they lose their jobs). Under Trump, almost everything a business needs to operate will cost a lot more, which will be devastating.

And Trump has made it clear he does not need Congress to approve his plan, so nothing will stop him from doing this regardless of who wins the majority in Congress:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-warns-congress-tariffs-plan-1958202

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

It's funny that Democrats are now throwing Gensler under the bus.
On the other hand I doubt they will abandon him completely. There's probably another warm seat waiting for him.

Gensler will probably return to academia.

Mark Cuban is going to make a great SEC Chairman, however....

Are you serious?
The guy that started the ponzi scheme with Voyager and the guy that got tricked into buying Bitconnect and was stupid enough to download a maware wallet and got drained out of $800k in crypto?
This guy?


Gensler is pro-bitcoin, he is anti-shitcoins, and every so-called crypto "investors" hate this because this is how they make money, with stupid schemes and pirting trillions of worthless coins, NFT, and pure vaporware.

Pressures from the shitcoin industry, probably ;D And Cuban would fit, see:

From the Tradingview article (https://www.tradingview.com/news/u_today:cf6e9e8c5094b:0-head-of-sec-that-s-job-i-would-take-pro-crypto-billionaire-mark-cuban/).

I don't know much about Cuban (apart from that he was mentioned recently at a rally by pro-crypto Democrats), but for me that looks like a quite obvious propaganda move. So at least the more naive parts of the "crypto industry" could support Democrats. (That doesn't mean I changed my mind supporting Trump though :) ) And if what @stompix wrote is true then it's not the right guy for that job.

I personally don't really mind Gensler, it will be indifferent for Bitcoin if he stays or not in my opinion. However if I was to vote I would replace him with somebody having more idea about a regulation that could make ICO crowdfunding easier, but with still strong investor protection (But I'm also not from the US.)

I don't mind him much either. Protecting consumers against fraud makes all of us money because it means we will get more mainstream investors with a lower risk premium. The thing holding trillions of dollars back from consumer investors is people's perception that the crypto business is full of fraud and criminals--and Trump would reinforce that perception.

Gensler has been made into a boogieman by a few billionaire Bitcoin whales who have pumped $millions into Trump's campaign because they want revenge.  Harris choosing a pro-crypto SEC Chairman like Cuban pops that balloon, and forces the Trump supporters here to admit they only want Trump because he's a criminal like themselves, or because he wants to make abortion illegal, or whatever their thing about Trump is--and that it actually never had anything to do with Bitcoin or the crypto business (which was just a convenient excuse).

Here's another story about Mark Cuban and his taking over of the SEC:

https://www.newsweek.com/mark-cuban-sec-fox-cavuto-1959882

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs. He is also not a man of his word, a hypocritical person, who says one thing and does a different thing.

Gary Gansler said that he didn't want to approve Bitcoin ETFs because Bitcoin is easily manipulated but he approved Bitcoin Futures ETFs without hesitation. He tried to postpone Bitcoin Spot ETF approval as long as possible and even after that, big guys like BlackRock forced him to approve ETFs. Gary, despite the fact of how he wasn't going to approve Bitcoin ETFs, approved it because of BlackRock's pressure and soon later he also approved Ethereum ETFs and there are many more ETFs on the way to get approved, which I believe some of them will get approval.
Gary is pro-blackrock, not pro-bitcoin.

legiteum is one person I can never take too serious considering their Posts are for the most part anti Trump messages.  I get they do not like him and there is no thing wrong with that but it is very dubious to see an anti Trump statement in almost every single post of theirs.  It exhausted me to the point where it is almost like reading bot replies on Reddit.

You do realize that you can be against IOU's promises of owning Bitcoin and being pro Bitcoin, right?
I wonder how in the world people advocate all day for owning your own keys, for decentralization, for being against banks and then they cheer when companies launch ETFs and see this as a good thing?

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?


How is he pro-Blackrock when he was forced (according to you) to approve their ETF?

The new SEC Chair is less important to us now. We got the Spot ETFs through, I don’t really care about shitcoins, so I don’t need the new Chair to be pro Altcoins or anything. Gensler was hostile towards Bitcoin for a long time, he got forced into approving the ETFs by court & also pressure from Blackrock, so I wish nothing but misery for any career he embarks on now.

You mean, did Satoshi design Bitcoin to be a meme investment instrument for millions of consumers investing their retirement funds? No, no he didn't :).

Bitcoin mostly stopped being used for what it was built for in about 2012...



I think I've called out the same thing before: in some arguments, the Illuminati Conspiracy is the thing mysteriously holding Bitcoin back because it upsets the power structure of bla bla bla bla. But then, when it's convenient, the same Illuminati is pro-Bitcoin because they secretly control politicians and force them to do things that are pro-Bitcoin, which is the only reason that the politicians we hate (for unrelated reasons) could possibly do something that is so obviously pro-Bitcoin.

It's almost like there's a political agenda here and Bitcoin is just an excuse, and the conspiracy theories are just tools.

Now I realize that you are right about one thing, Satoshi wouldn't like ETFs. I am confused. I personally think that massive Bitcoin adoption is destroying Bitcoin but at the same time it's what people want. My conclusion is that the Bitcoin community wanted Bitcoin ETF approvals, so if Gary goes against it, he isn't pro-bitcoin but on the other hand, like you said, Bitcoin ETFs aren't pro-bitcoin in reality because we have read whitepaper and know Satoshi's vision. So I'm really confused with what I wrote above but nothing makes Gary pro-bitcoin, he is an SEC chairman and that's what he cares about.

In pro-Blackrock I mean that he didn't stand by his own words and instead did what Blackrock told him to do. He could stand strong and didn't approve ETFs. He shouldn't also have approved Futures ETFs because he think that Bitcoin is volatile and in that case, futures make Bitcoin, as an investment option, even more volatile.

I remember when the election topics were getting more and more popular on the forum and most people were supporting Trump, he was just one of the few people supporting Harris and it seemed like he couldn't stand alone against the crowd. Then he had a thread telling people to stop associating bitcoin with politics because it's bad for bitcoin but ironically, he was the one who kept mentioning bitcoin, trump and Harris as what was going on. It doesn't stop there, as you said, he always finds opportunities to badmouth and insult Trump even when the topic has nothing to do with Trump.

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

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

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

Prepare to be amazed again
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-s12-blockchain-and-money-fall-2018/

So this guy who people who praise shitcoins and meme coins and have never actually owned their coins at any moment was teaching about blockchain and decentralization 6 years ago at f**** MIT!!!! The so-called crypto lovers were pumping shitcoins on twitter meanwhile!
People here love to hate every official, hate the government hate everything, but the truth is Gensler is a true maxi, he hates everything that is a cheap copy of bitcoin, he has never criticized even while being the SEC Bitcoin as a coin or a crypto, he is pro regulating CEXs and shitcoins.

Now going back to Satoshi again, would Satoshid defend Coinbase against SEC? Do you think he would defend Ripple against the SEC? Look at what this forum has become, hating a guy who is against the exact same things Satoshi has been, in what world do you see Saotshi saying it's ok to have a company in charge of your coins and issuing unlimited coins?  ;D

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

Can you give an example? How would a politician pass a law that would protect consumers against fraud with cryptocurrency?

Here's what it was built for:

Remains the same concept, after all these years. Being used more as a store of value or as an "investment through a broker" does not change that fact.

I just want this election to just pass by, but I know not everybody would be satisfied and some would regret their decisions.
I know no politician is pure and all but non of the two major party has given me a reason to be a "Real" Supporter.
Well I'm not from the US, but unfortunately the result would still affect me indirectly.

Maybe implement a law that all exchange but have their Customers funds strictly insured on
Or maybe educate the public or be stringent with new shitcoins created
But we have seen cases where data's are tempered with and Fraudsters would just get smarter.
And even if regulations Would be made, It would be hard to really implement.

But how would a line be drawn between Regulation and centralization? that would be a blurry question to answer.

It is unreasonable to expect a crypto company to maintain insurance coverage equal to the value of every cryptocurrency it holds, similar to how banks insure cash deposits. Think about it. For every amount of crypto someone deposits, it needs to keep the same reserve in cash. What if that crypto skyrockets in price? Where does it find the cash to insure that? The equation becomes incredibly complex, and it'd just result in exchanges running illegally or getting shut down.

Education requires no regulation, no bill, and no coercion. It's what we already have to an extent, but people appear to feel like there's more than personal responsibility.

And you can't properly value the cryptocurrency holdings as the larger the portfolio, the more likely the liquidation value or fair value moves away from the current book value. We have seen that with fire sales during the financial crisis in 2007/2008 when banks tried to get rid of MBS at the last price that was paid in the public market. It's nonsense as realizing book value during volatile times in particularly markets, which applies to cryptocurrencies, is essentially impossible.

As you said it would be unbelievably complex for all crypto companies to shuffle around cash all day long in order to match their book values for the sake of insurance coverage.

However, the 10x money creation out of nowhere that banks operate with these days is probably not a good idea in regards to long-term market stability. ;) But 1:1 insurance coverage could make markets more inefficient.

The modern monetary theory underpinning the current financial system is fundamentally flawed. From banks creating credit money out of thin air, which can be bailed out in the worst-case scenario, to central banks controlling the extent to which other banks can set interest rates, none of these practices are leading us toward long-term market stability.

Mark Cuban a pro-crypto sounds like a joke, this man promoted some shit and scam projects like Bit connect, if I can tell or ask him anything I would tell him to hunt for the bitconnect CEO first before he can become the SEC chairman, this man even got drained because of Malware.

Just because some popular figure is into crypto doesn't make them crypto experts, the person that fits the sit is someone who can create out of block chain, the levels of Vitalik Buterin, someone who can actually tell the difference.

Few comments are saying that gensler is a pro bitcoinist, I don't believe so because in the past he was into one or two altcoins and also support them, I can't remember the names again, Gensler lacks a lot about the Block chain, Mark might be better but there are better fits out there than these two.

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

Can you imagine, for instance, if there was no FBI that would prosecute fraudsters? Would you imagine that would increase the propensity of fraud just a little bit? :)

Certainly there are lots of regulations that are probably bad and don't stop fraud, but anarchy is not the answer. The answer is to fight fraud in every form, and Congress should assist in that.


There's nothing in the Bitcoin whitepaper about creating a non-inflatable asset as a specific goal. The formula for Coke hasn't changed since it was a cough medicine either, but that's not how the product is used.

There are lots and lots of investments that cannot be inflated. Beachfront property in California for instance. Gold is pretty close (and highly predictable). There are thousands of other examples.

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

And besides these devs simply deciding this on their own, they could be compelled by a government to make their decision under threat of prosecution.

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

After that, they noticed they can do the same thing for more blocks. Bitcoin wallet holders go along with all of this because any fork not following US orders would be banned in the US and thus nearly worthless compared to the one in everybody's brokerage app and ETF. Trump will have essentially extorted changes in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not a magic force, it's a piece of software. It's a great piece of software, and a great community and infrastructure support it, but it's just a human invention just like sovereign currencies are*.

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

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

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

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

---

Edit:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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


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



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


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

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

hello guys im new

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump is an avowed racist who is demonizing minorities across the USA now, making up stories about them and terrorizing communities of color (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/29/springfield-immigration-haiti-germany/). Attaching this "brand" to Bitcoin could relegate it to the dustbin of history.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/10/05/iJ5jm.png
https://seekingalpha.com/news/4054708-sec-chair-gary-gensler-calls-bitcoin-highly-speculative-and-volatile

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/10/11/8doOv.png

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

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

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