[2018-12-18] New US Chief of Staff: Bitcoin is Good, ‘Not Manipulable by Any Gov

[cybersofts]

New US Chief of Staff: Bitcoin is Good, ‘Not Manipulable by Any Government’



his week, following the scheduled leave of John F. Kelly, United States President Donald Trump has chosen the pro-Bitcoin Mick Mulvaney to serve as the acting White House Chief of Staff beginning 2019.

According to the Washington Post columnist Matt O’Brien, Mulvaney has been vocal about his support of Bitcoin (BTC) and in a speech covered by Mother Jones praised the decentralized nature of Bitcoin as a consensus currency.

In 2016, Mulvaney reportedly said that the Federal Reserve “effectively devalued the dollar” and emphasized that the exercise of such control is not possible with a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin that is “not manipulable by any government.”

Is it Good For Bitcoin?
Having a high profile official and an influential member of the Trump administration is certainly positive for the long-term growth of the asset class.

While the neutral stance of Mulvaney towards the cryptocurrency sector could affect the mindset of regulators and lawmakers in the U.S. to a certain extent, it realistically cannot have a short-term impact on the roadmap implemented by commissions like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Reference: https://www.ccn.com/new-us-chief-of-staff-bitcoin-is-good-not-manipulable-by-any-government/

[buwaytress]

The Trump regime good for Bitcoin? Don't think so, and surely not from a chief of staff anyway. If having Bitcoin supporters among commissioners of the SEC itself hasn't helped them Wall Street people get into Bitcoin (and no, of course I don't believe they haven't stuck their fingers in that pie yet) then what's a pro-Bitcoin Republican going to do from Oval Office?

[Harlot]

AFAIK the President's chief of staff cannot do anything about creating laws in their county he can only go as far as influencing the President on some specific matters, we don't even know if Mulvaney will bring anything about things related to Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies in general when he is in the white house. Let us not yet think that this move is about cryptocurrencies as the chief of staff position is really touching a lot of matters other than the state of cryptocurrencies in the USA so let us just see the upcoming news related to him if there are further developments.

[squatter]

The Trump regime good for Bitcoin? Don't think so, and surely not from a chief of staff anyway. If having Bitcoin supporters among commissioners of the SEC itself hasn't helped them Wall Street people get into Bitcoin (and no, of course I don't believe they haven't stuck their fingers in that pie yet) then what's a pro-Bitcoin Republican going to do from Oval Office?

While I don't think this is going to result in any pro-Bitcoin regulation, I think about the opposite situation: What would happen if he appointed an anti-Bitcoin zealot as one of his closest advisors? At least we've got an influential staffer on the inside who specifically isn't interested in clamping down on the industry or over-regulating. That can't be a bad thing.

[rodskee]

This good news US chief of stff is higher and influential position in. World i salute for him supporting in crypto
But much better and believer if the supprt of Us givernment derictly came from the president well is possible
Crypto currency become strong currncy in united states and etf approval have big chance

[buwaytress]

The Trump regime good for Bitcoin? Don't think so, and surely not from a chief of staff anyway. If having Bitcoin supporters among commissioners of the SEC itself hasn't helped them Wall Street people get into Bitcoin (and no, of course I don't believe they haven't stuck their fingers in that pie yet) then what's a pro-Bitcoin Republican going to do from Oval Office?

While I don't think this is going to result in any pro-Bitcoin regulation, I think about the opposite situation: What would happen if he appointed an anti-Bitcoin zealot as one of his closest advisors? At least we've got an influential staffer on the inside who specifically isn't interested in clamping down on the industry or over-regulating. That can't be a bad thing.

Fair enough, I suppose. Though I would say if we were now going to brand new appointments to public office as either pro or against Bitcoin, it would quickly become meaningless (if not already meaningless). Now this might be a lot more impactful were Bitcoin a more centralised currency like most in the top 10 right now. Zealots in either camp would know by now (I hope I'm not overestimating them heh) that it's pointless to attack or defend Bitcoin - it's there and they've got to deal with it. And it'll live or die with or without their overt attentions.

[Kakmakr]

I doubt if his opinion on Bitcoin will have any significant impact on policy changes or even influencing the SEC's decision to approve a Bitcoin ETF in the future. After all, Bitcoin is only one aspect of 1000s of issues that a Chief of staff has to concentrate on. We only have 1 or 2 Bitcoin supporters on the SEC now, so this will not carry any more weight with them. 

I am a "Glass half full" person on most issues, but I am skeptical about the people pushing the anti-Bitcoin movement in the USA at the moment.    <A lot of them are also against the Trump governance> 

[magneto]

Having a high profile official and an influential member of the Trump administration is certainly positive for the long-term growth of the asset class.

I'd have to disagree with this. Bitcoin's long term success does not depend on a single's person's opinion, regardless of how influential that person is. That's the beauty of decentralisation, in my opinion. If anything, this news will only spark short term hype within the market, and when people realise that this really has no tangible benefits, then that hype will die down.

Also, I share the doubts of other users in terms of whether this statement will lead to any positive regulation. To me, it would be very unlikely to see this ever happen.

But I mean, he is absolutely right in saying that bitcoin's not manipulable. And that's the exact reason why people invest in it, long term. It's not subject to the imminent depreciation of fiat currencies, nor is it as cumbersome and inconvenient as other safe haven assets like precious metals. I'm just not sure whether this is actually news worth reporting though, given that it's a statement he made 2 years ago.