Trump was asked if he can quit crypto for the crypto bill to be passed

[Accardo]

He didn't give an adequate personal answer to the question, but he kept on saying that if the US didn't get hold of crypto China would have done it and that was his main reason of investing into the industry. He even made mention of how he impacted the market positively, but wasn't sure if his kids or himself will deassociate, for a while, from participating in crypto, because the Democrats wouldn't vote on that bill if Trump's family is a huge part of the industry. The bill has been lingering for a little while.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tdHE4-XB_JY

[Zlantann]

He didn't give an adequate personal answer to the question, but he kept on saying that if the US didn't get hold of crypto China would have done it and that was his main reason of investing into the industry. He even made mention of how he impacted the market positively, but wasn't sure if his kids or himself will deassociate, for a while, from participating in crypto, because the Democrats wouldn't vote on that bill if Trump's family is a huge part of the industry. The bill has been lingering for a little while.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tdHE4-XB_JY

He refused to give any specific answer, which means we don't know if he would accept dropping his investment in cryptocurrencies for Democrats to support the crypto bills. But do Republicans need Democrats to pass the bill? I thought they had the majority in Congress, or are some Republicans in the House against the crypto bill.

The GENIUS Act was passed by the Senate without any discussion about Trump's crypto interest by a 68-30 vote, with 18 Democrats crossing to join Republicans. I also expect that it will be passed in the House because some Democrats are crypto fans.  I don't think Trump needs to drop his crypto investments before it is passed in the House.

https://apnews.com/article/crypto-stablecoins-trump-senate-383b502d3d80169f8f4739055dada0cb

[coolcoinz]

It's pretty dumb to require his whole family to get out. What would they do now? Sell all their bitcoin just because Democrats demand them to do so? That's like blackmail.
How is he going to make his whole family do it and how is anyone going to confirm that they did? What about after the bill is signed? Are they allowed to get back in?

To realize the stupidity of this, imagine a situation where no members of parliament are able to vote on the things that they own. You can't decide whether electric cars get pushed if you own one. You can't decide whether foreign companies are allowed to invest in your country if you hold their stock, you can't decide if a local firm gets a government contract if you own their shares and so on.
Let's go deeper. Why is the FED allowed to decide the future of the Dollar while holding it? How can someone holding US bonds, or having a mortgage, adjust rates?

[Felicity_Tide]

It's pretty dumb to require his whole family to get out. What would they do now? Sell all their bitcoin just because Democrats demand them to do so? That's like blackmail.
How is he going to make his whole family do it and how is anyone going to confirm that they did? What about after the bill is signed? Are they allowed to get back in?

To realize the stupidity of this, imagine a situation where no members of parliament are able to vote on the things that they own. You can't decide whether electric cars get pushed if you own one. You can't decide whether foreign companies are allowed to invest in your country if you hold their stock, you can't decide if a local firm gets a government contract if you own their shares and so on.
Let's go deeper. Why is the FED allowed to decide the future of the Dollar while holding it? How can someone holding US bonds, or having a mortgage, adjust rates?

I was a bit confused, but I think your reply perfectly explains what's going on.
But my question is, what does the bill actually contain that makes it seem like it is going to favour Trump?
Like he has said (from the video), he has been in crypto even before this second term in office.
His vision to make the US the leading crypto country was made known during his campaign, and I could remember that. So, it's not as if he just woke up one morning and decided to go invest in crypto. Although, I'm still very much interested in reading the bill.

That aside, why did he have to include China when being asked the question. China's stance on crypto has been very unclear to me. AFAIK, you can own but can't trade, so I don't think there was a competition from that angle all along. The US would have still led, but the Trump factor was an advantage.

But incase there is more to this story than this, i will be glad to do a follow up.

[Hispo]

Quite ironic, considering there are both democrats and Republicans who have the vote to pass or block laws which would benefit some specific industries, and at the same time those same Republicans and democrats are shareholders of some major companies which would both benefit from the privileged information they have as member of the congress and the Senate.
Let us not forget the allegations against Nancy Pelosi of being nothing less than a inside trader.

Nobody within the world of politics is demanding all those congress people and Senate members to sell all their stocks in order to continue holding their position.

[OgNasty]

Quite ironic, considering there are both democrats and Republicans who have the vote to pass or block laws which would benefit some specific industries, and at the same time those same Republicans and democrats are shareholders of some major companies which would both benefit from the privileged information they have as member of the congress and the Senate.
Let us not forget the allegations against Nancy Pelosi of being nothing less than a inside trader.

Nobody within the world of politics is demanding all those congress people and Senate members to sell all their stocks in order to continue holding their position.

I mean, we've been trying to stop Nancy Pelosi from using her insider knowledge to make hundreds of millions of dollars, it just hasn't worked. With politicians now able to hold stocks in anonymous crypto accounts on different blockchains, it is basically a fool's errand to even try to stop them.  You'll only catch the honest people who make mistakes. 

In Trump's case, as mentioned, he would just have all his crypto dealings done through his children, which he's pretty old so that's basically what is happening now...   I don't think he'll be around long enough to cash out and spend any of that sweet crypto cash.

[Hispo]

Quite ironic, considering there are both democrats and Republicans who have the vote to pass or block laws which would benefit some specific industries, and at the same time those same Republicans and democrats are shareholders of some major companies which would both benefit from the privileged information they have as member of the congress and the Senate.
Let us not forget the allegations against Nancy Pelosi of being nothing less than a inside trader.

Nobody within the world of politics is demanding all those congress people and Senate members to sell all their stocks in order to continue holding their position.

I mean, we've been trying to stop Nancy Pelosi from using her insider knowledge to make hundreds of millions of dollars, it just hasn't worked. With politicians now able to hold stocks in anonymous crypto accounts on different blockchains, it is basically a fool's errand to even try to stop them.  You'll only catch the honest people who make mistakes. 

In Trump's case, as mentioned, he would just have all his crypto dealings done through his children, which he's pretty old so that's basically what is happening now...   I don't think he'll be around long enough to cash out and spend any of that sweet crypto cash.

Though, I thought in the United States it was public knowledge whether a politician (member of the chamber or member of the Senate) had stocks on their portfolio and which stocks they had... I say this because I remember some news about a guy who developed an application which allowed anyone to mimic the stock investments and movements of politicians in the USA chambers, like Pelosi, and if I remember correctly, it was quite a tool for consistent earnings from the stock market...
If the United States as more transparent country, there would be already a law which does not allow lawmakers or their close family to have access to stocks, maybe only to commodities.

[AVE5]

He didn't give an adequate personal answer to the question, but he kept on saying that if the US didn't get hold of crypto China would have done it and that was his main reason of investing into the industry. He even made mention of how he impacted the market positively, but wasn't sure if his kids or himself will deassociate, for a while, from participating in crypto, because the Democrats wouldn't vote on that bill if Trump's family is a huge part of the industry. The bill has been lingering for a little while.

Let me not act like I'm ain't bothered about this information, Donald Trumps and his family are core crypto enthusiasts and has personally invested on it with their own funds. And Trump's proposal for the US Parliaments to adopt cryptocurrencies as part of their treasure reserve was due to his analysis that bitcoin is a safe haven with potentials that'd enhance stability and support the economy at time of disasters or recessions.

All these purpoted opinions are for the interest of the US economic sustainability so why opposition acting like if the bill is signed it'd be of the interest of the presidency alone? Or has there been an intel that the presidency and his allies would be core beneficiary when it's implemented like possibilities to loot behind the federation crypto reservebas it'd be under their regulations?
Besides crypto is decentralized and not everyone publicly talk about their holdings in the crypto market. So how do they expect Trump to be that sincere if at all he decides to give up according to the conditions?
But wait a second, I think this is were Hispo got the point of the "ironic" because they really want to know if Trump have ulterior motive on the motion.

[Sim_card]

He didn't give an adequate personal answer to the question, but he kept on saying that if the US didn't get hold of crypto China would have done it and that was his main reason of investing into the industry. He even made mention of how he impacted the market positively, but wasn't sure if his kids or himself will deassociate, for a while, from participating in crypto, because the Democrats wouldn't vote on that bill if Trump's family is a huge part of the industry. The bill has been lingering for a little while.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tdHE4-XB_JY

Do you expect Trump to give up his crypto investment for the presidential seat, I doubt it. What do you expect from the Democrats, to be happy with Trump and praise him when they are two rivals. It's politics and they will do everything not to be in favor of Trump if they could. However, I believe that it was because of Trump crypto dealings and his promises to Americans to soften the regulations on crypto that made him win the election.

[coolcoinz]

I was a bit confused, but I think your reply perfectly explains what's going on.
But my question is, what does the bill actually contain that makes it seem like it is going to favour Trump?
Like he has said (from the video), he has been in crypto even before this second term in office.
His vision to make the US the leading crypto country was made known during his campaign, and I could remember that. So, it's not as if he just woke up one morning and decided to go invest in crypto. Although, I'm still very much interested in reading the bill.

That aside, why did he have to include China when being asked the question. China's stance on crypto has been very unclear to me. AFAIK, you can own but can't trade, so I don't think there was a competition from that angle all along. The US would have still led, but the Trump factor was an advantage.

But incase there is more to this story than this, i will be glad to do a follow up.

It's not just black and white with China. One one hand Trump likes to scare people with the China angle and it looks like he's using it too much. On the other, China has been spying on the US for decades and stealing whatever plans they could get their hands on. Huawei was banned for a reason. China makes it look like bitcoin is banned there, but it's not in Hong Kong and it's been often said that this is where China does its experiments. If they need a narrative that, for instance, they don't do business with this or that company, they will do it through Hong Kong.

If bitcoin is allowed in Hong Kong, the Party doesn't want to admit it, but wants to make money from it, just not openly. I guess they're afraid of backlash if it somehow fails. They don't want to be called irresponsible for allowing bitcoin and then some people get hacked or something and it makes less people trust in their ability to lead the country. China probably already owns bitcoin through shell companies, just like Russia.

[caroasi]

For reasons along the lines of the OP, I think it is better for all people involved in cryptocurrency to focus more on stablecoins. I'm quite enthusiastic about gold and silver stablecoins. I don't like the deflationary aspect that leads to lots of speculation and investment in a baseless asset class, and I don't consider it economically optimal.

[Mevve]

I was a bit confused, but I think your reply perfectly explains what's going on.
But my question is, what does the bill actually contain that makes it seem like it is going to favour Trump?
Like he has said (from the video), he has been in crypto even before this second term in office.
His vision to make the US the leading crypto country was made known during his campaign, and I could remember that. So, it's not as if he just woke up one morning and decided to go invest in crypto. Although, I'm still very much interested in reading the bill.

That aside, why did he have to include China when being asked the question. China's stance on crypto has been very unclear to me. AFAIK, you can own but can't trade, so I don't think there was a competition from that angle all along. The US would have still led, but the Trump factor was an advantage.

But incase there is more to this story than this, i will be glad to do a follow up.

It's not just black and white with China. One one hand Trump likes to scare people with the China angle and it looks like he's using it too much. On the other, China has been spying on the US for decades and stealing whatever plans they could get their hands on. Huawei was banned for a reason. China makes it look like bitcoin is banned there, but it's not in Hong Kong and it's been often said that this is where China does its experiments. If they need a narrative that, for instance, they don't do business with this or that company, they will do it through Hong Kong.

If bitcoin is allowed in Hong Kong, the Party doesn't want to admit it, but wants to make money from it, just not openly. I guess they're afraid of backlash if it somehow fails. They don't want to be called irresponsible for allowing bitcoin and then some people get hacked or something and it makes less people trust in their ability to lead the country. China probably already owns bitcoin through shell companies, just like Russia.

I don't think making this assumption from Hong Kong (HK) is right. HK used to be a british colony and they got some special rights when they were returned to China, most notably being able to pass their own laws. As you might know, in recent years China have been bringing HK closer to Beijings control, focusing first on dismantling and replacing police and politicians. In time, as HK falls even deeper under Chinas control, crypto will surely be banned there as well.

China is an authoritarian state with capital controls. They don't allow their citizens to buy USD for example so why would they allow them to do it through crypto with extra steps?