[NEWS] Elizabeth Warren says she’s building an anti-crypto army in new campaign

[buwaytress]

Seems like bad news on the front, but Bitcoin, Ethereum don't have anything to worry about. It's just the Coinbases and FTXs that do -- isn't that a good thing for most people who still leave their coins on services and use apps to "buy" Bitcoin?

Did Bitcoin suffer after the world's most populous country banned it? Did a single Chinese person suffer in their use of Bitcoin since 2013? Not from my experience! Sure, they can't easily use Binance, can't use Coinbase, but it's only helped spur P2P use there.

[1714826915]

1714826915

[1714826915]

1714826915

[1714826915]

1714826915

[DooMAD]

But the question is why this senator is against BTC and it's decentralization.

When in doubt, follow the money.  It's probably "lobbying".  Someone (or several someones) with ties to traditional finance will likely be applying pressure for the senator to adopt this stance.

[sheenshane]

If Bitcoin could survive without China, I'm sure it can survive without Massachusetts and a few other federal states.

That's right and I tend to agree with this, whether it will win or not Warren's campaign will be successful in achieving its goals is yet to be seen.  So I don't care either because IMO, the crypto industry has grown rapidly in recent years and has a large following of supporters who see it as a legitimate form of investment and a way to promote financial freedom, not only in the States and it has been proven while China banning Bitcoin.

Who will be charged on a decentralized network?
It might Elizbeth thought, with this election campaign she will get many supporters and possibly be re-elected but in fact, only those people who didn't understand the Bitcoin network works.

[Bushdark]

Seems like bad news on the front, but Bitcoin, Ethereum don't have anything to worry about. It's just the Coinbases and FTXs that do -- isn't that a good thing for most people who still leave their coins on services and use apps to "buy" Bitcoin?

Did Bitcoin suffer after the world's most populous country banned it? Did a single Chinese person suffer in their use of Bitcoin since 2013? Not from my experience! Sure, they can't easily use Binance, can't use Coinbase, but it's only helped spur P2P use there.

Whether she's building an anti army for Bitcoin or not, we don't care about that because there is no way she would do that and it will affect the flow of Bitcoin or the cryptocurrency. Let her organize her anti Bitcoin army and let's see how it will go. We don't need to bother ourselves about the market again because there is nothing again that can affect the Bitcoin market. If there will be any possible organization or army that can crash the cryptocurrency market then that would have happened before now maybe many years ago when Bitcoin price was still below a thousand dollars.

[so98nn]

Ah well are we forgetting that she can’t control public ledger by all herself? Do not be afraid since we are talking about virtual currencies which has the purpose of solving bypass procedure of fiat or traditional system. It’s simple, the whole blockchain was invented so that no single person or an entity would be able to control it rather the power is distributed through every person who joins the network. This means whether this lady create anti crypto squad or not, there is simply no possible way to control it anyways. That’s really funny though.

[lionheart78]

The most concerning thing that could come from this campaign is someone looking at it and thinking, "Yes, this makes me want to vote for Elizabeth Warren". As a non-politically involved/non-government individual, who in their right mind is thinking that an "anti-crypto army" is something that would be directly beneficial to them and their community? I can only see people who have been scammed in some way that involved cryptocurrency seeing this as a good thing. Elizabeth Warren probably got duped herself, that would explain why she is so anti-crypto

Analysis aside. The campaign image is a great meme.

If I were to guess what kind of person would look at this and want to vote for her, then I suppose those which live by the mantra 'misery loves company' fit her target audience perfectly.

Obviously those who are convinced by her concept will vote for her.  Remember, America is not saturated by crypto enthusiast let alone only a small percentage of people have the same ideals like us at this moment.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general have no effect on the lives of those which do not use them, and even if they see in bitcoin a tool to obtain freedoms they neither want or need, they still do not want for anyone else to have them, so people like her can get a lot of votes despite that a proposal like this will bring no benefits at all to the ones supporting her.

Everything in the economy has a domino effect.  People are affected indirectly on whatever happened to the financial institution.  So we cannot 100% say that cryptocurrency have no effect on the lives of people that do not use them.  One sample is, if crypto dominates and banks shut down, people who are subscribed to those banks are greatly affected even though they do not use cryptocurrency.

[Gyfts]

Elizabeth Warren is a washed politician with no leg to stand on, so she chooses to die on the hill of crypto regulation. She did run for President in 2020 -- her run accumulated in the evaporation in millions of dollars of campaign funds as she would drop out with hardly any votes.

She isn't popular any where outside of her jurisdiction, and I'd wager that her own constituency does not find her that favorable with her incumbency pushing her over the finish line every election cycle. Unless someone's prepared to primary her and has a lot of money on hand, she'll win reelection.

The most concerning thing that could come from this campaign is someone looking at it and thinking, "Yes, this makes me want to vote for Elizabeth Warren". As a non-politically involved/non-government individual, who in their right mind is thinking that an "anti-crypto army" is something that would be directly beneficial to them and their community? I can only see people who have been scammed in some way that involved cryptocurrency seeing this as a good thing. Elizabeth Warren probably got duped herself, that would explain why she is so anti-crypto

Analysis aside. The campaign image is a great meme.

Warren isn't an overt socialist but she's close to it. She wants the federal government involved in all aspects of economic and currency regulation so it shouldn't come as a surprise that she thinks it's a great idea to force crypto companies to adhere to all sorts of governmental red tape. All her wackiness and she still gets reelected over and over again by her voters.

[DooMAD]

I notice 'Alphabet' (Google) are one of her larger benefactors.  A company who just so happen to have a payment platform, Google Pay.  Perhaps they see Bitcoin as competition and are financially motivated to fund those who oppose it?

[bbc.reporter]

According to this article, it is rumored and speculated that Senator Elizabeth Warren conspired with a trader Marc Cohodes to profit from the meltdown of Silvergate bank and Signature bank. This is certainly corruption and illegal if this is true. However, this will work for her anticrypto army campaign because she can blame the meltdown of those banks on the cryptospace hehehe.



Politics can make for strange bedfellows, and, according to a popular rumor in crypto circles, one of the stranger alliances involves progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a short-seller named Marc Cohodes who cashed in on the collapse of Silvergate and Signature banks. Cohodes is very active in Washington, D.C., where he shopped a research memo about the banks to numerous lawmakers and to agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

It’s a great story—if it’s true. And the evidence for that is not conclusive. When I called Cohodes, he did not deny that he had been in touch with Warren’s office but said he “talks to all sorts of people” and didn’t provide any specifics. He described himself as “just one guy” who has a track record of exposing fraudulent companies, and, in a later email, called the two banks “Publicly traded Crime Scenes.” Cohodes insists he has no opinion on crypto but only in calling attention to what he says was the banks’ complicity in money laundering. He did confirm he made money from holding short positions in both Signature and Silvergate when the banks collapsed.

Based on this, it’s hard to conclude that Warren and Cohodes are in cahoots—or even that they know each other. But if you want additional circumstantial evidence, you can perhaps find it in this New York Times article in which Cohodes is one of a tiny fraction of Wall Street types supporting Warren’s 2020 presidential run. And you can look at the fact that it’s a former Warren staffer who is behind a controversial class action lawsuit against a DeFi company—suggesting Warren’s team is happy to adopt a wide variety of tactics in its crusade against crypto.

Note also that a Politico headline this week said the senator is “building an anti-crypto army.” It’s not beyond the pale to imagine this army could include a short-seller.

Read in full https://content.fortune.com/newsletter/fortune-crypto/

[franky1]

not sure why people are mentioning SVB and signature failures in the same topics as crypto..

those banks failed due to mis-managing treasury bonds..
maybe warren should be trying to start a war on treasury bonds markets instead..

2008 was caused by mortgage derivatives
2022 was caused by treasury bonds

both are about debt being sold to other institutions at a mark down.
both are considered discounted debt notes

which can go bad if funds are needed to be pulled back. which happened in both cases

neither financial crises were due to crypto nor crypto users

[buwaytress]

Seems like bad news on the front, but Bitcoin, Ethereum don't have anything to worry about.

Whether she's building an anti army for Bitcoin or not, we don't care about that because there is no way she would do that and it will affect the flow of Bitcoin or the cryptocurrency. Let her organize her anti Bitcoin army and let's see how it will go. We don't need to bother ourselves about the market again because there is nothing again that can affect the Bitcoin market. If there will be any possible organization or army that can crash the cryptocurrency market then that would have happened before now maybe many years ago when Bitcoin price was still below a thousand dollars.

Right. That was not really what I was saying. Global economic pressure and stock market correlation sort of proves more and more that Bitcoin markets (and by proxy, crypto) can, in fact, be impacted.

All I was saying is the headline is not necessarily bad news for crypto users in general. I always say, what doesn't kill Bitcoin only makes it stronger...

[NotATether]

Don't worry it's highly unlikely that a Dem wins the 2024 election after unpopular stuff that Joe Biden did.

But she should really enlist Greenpeace for help. I'm sure they would jump at the opportunity to destroy crypto too - wait, what's that you say? Their financial backer doesn't want them to break XRP? Well nevermind then, they will pass the opportunity 

[avikz]

It's Unfortunate for the state of Massachusetts, but not for the bitcoin ecosystem, fortunately. That's the best part of decentralization. Even if some massive anti-crypto campaign is funded by this old lady, crypto ecosystem won't get affected. Some certain groups of people living in that state might not have direct access to cryptos if anything goes wrong. But largely, no impact will be seen!

It's true that politicians need to learn new things and it's a big responsibility of today's youth, not to elect such people who are old and ignorant of new techs. In my country, we are facing this issue for a long time. It needs to change for good!

[bbc.reporter]

not sure why people are mentioning SVB and signature failures in the same topics as crypto..

It is just news showing why the people of Massachusetts should not vote for a corrupt, hypocritical person back in the senate. She does not use her position to function for the interest of the people. She uses her position to move for herself and in the interest of the rulers and the leaders of America.

It also appears that there are people in the forum who underestimate these latest coordinated attacks vs. the cryptospace. This might not be something similar that was done before. The regulators are much more serious this time.

[dothebeats]

Imagine having someone like her running the state which was known for a lot of technological breakthroughs and disruptive tech work. It would be a shame if she wins in the election knowing full well what her in the office would look like. Her bill was technically trying to convey who is behind what in the cryptospace, and was only adorned with legal words that seem pro-people when in fact it wasn't. I wouldn't trust her to represent me in the Senate if I were from Massachusetts, knowing that her programs were focused solely on quashing one movement that didn't do much damage to my state nor its people.

Perhaps if she comes up with a rather convincing reason as to why her bill isn't only to prosecute but also to help flourish, then I might reconsider my choices if I were from Massachusetts, but it seems that it's a non-negotiable to her and she just wants to push her agenda so bad.

[crypticj]

Good luck fighting the crypto industry that is evolving very fast and adoption is just getting better and better.

I think it's nothing. They can't win over bitcoin and it's already widely used for them to ban it. And they also should respect the fact that crypto investors are an interest group that will surely vote against her and other opponents can use it to drag them on their side.

So I think in the end she will be forced to change this policy.

[Fundamentals Of]

What I don't understand is why this senator is trying to kill cryptocurrency as if it is an enemy. Crypto is part of the advancement of financial technology. It is an innovation. It is not something criminal. It does not violate the people's rights to their lives or to their properties. In fact, it is developed with the goal of making life better for everyone.

It doesn't seem wise to seek reelection showing so much hatred against a technological innovation as if she's fighting against drugs or other criminalities. Depending on how high the level of crypto awareness among the voters of Massachusetts, this is like a political suicide.

[CryptSafe]

funny part is

bitcoin started life under a MIT licence
the M of MIT is her states name

MIT is a hub of technical innovation, a literal institution of technology and she wants to strangle it.,, hmm not a good look when it comes to re-election

You are right Franky and I don't think the senator has a good campaign strategy, anti-Bitcoin campaigns being the centre vocal point of her election bid will turn the electorate's interest away from her since no one wants autocratic leaders who will not want the freedom of the citizens must especially freedom in finances.

Elizabeth has a slim chance of winning the election and as a matter of fact, her entire political career may be affected negatively because of her hate for Bitcoin since a large portion of the society already embracing bitcoin.

The young voters will see Elizabeth as old fashion politician who does not have the wherewithal to mitigate through the process of adopting bitcoin and other digital assets into the traditional financial system as a lawmaker.

With this as her campaign manifesto, I do not think she would go anywhere not to think of winning the elections. How could she be that insensitive when it comes to choice of words and agenda to campaign with. She is wanting to represent an IT hub in the senates and yet she is against one of the greatest IT innovation aka Bitcoin in a zone where technologist exist. How does she want to campaign then, who does she wants to vote for her. This is a suicide mission you know because anybody who votes for her is more or less removing food from their table and cone to talk of it, she is of age and should be retired by now facing her home and taking good care of her family.

This makes me start asking myself this question. Aren't they the older ones not tired of public offices? At such age they should have retired from active politics paving way for the youths to take over leadership but greed and hunger for power would not allow them.

[Kasabus]

The most concerning thing that could come from this campaign is someone looking at it and thinking, "Yes, this makes me want to vote for Elizabeth Warren". As a non-politically involved/non-government individual, who in their right mind is thinking that an "anti-crypto army" is something that would be directly beneficial to them and their community? I can only see people who have been scammed in some way that involved cryptocurrency seeing this as a good thing. Elizabeth Warren probably got duped herself, that would explain why she is so anti-crypto

Analysis aside. The campaign image is a great meme.

Probably, that could be her first reason why she is digging seriously into this "anti-crypto army", trying to convince everyone that this will solve all incidents of scamming as she entirely believe that crypto is anti-humanity. Well, that is her and we can't control her negative thinking towards crypto. However, it's also undeniable that fiat is also involved in different types of scamming, but how come she didn't think of building a campaign on anti-fiat? Imagine if she will win in the election, I cannot expect for a better future of the country. There is no transparency as her decision is clearly a bias. 

[CarnagexD]

Good luck fighting the crypto industry that is evolving very fast and adoption is just getting better and better.

I think it's nothing. They can't win over bitcoin and it's already widely used for them to ban it. And they also should respect the fact that crypto investors are an interest group that will surely vote against her and other opponents can use it to drag them on their side.

So I think in the end she will be forced to change this policy.

Definetly a wrong move for her. Crypto gives the right to people to own digital property and her anti crypto campaign is like an anti-values for the Americans. A person with a mind like her in the senate will do good since she have already helped a lot of people noting that shes has done a good job from her previohs terms. But it has always been a part of her campaign to fight against crypto. Ive done my research and I think there are still many people who believe in her platforms that's why issues like these should be talked about so no one will be a victim of fake news. She can spend the money to other better projects than in the anti crypto army.