Kamala Harris might continue crackdowns on Bitcoin and the cryptospace

[Marvell1]

The ultimate purpose of this discussion is still bitcoin, people are just concerned about its future and want to know what it will look like after the election is over. No one here cares about Trump or Harris as much as you think.

Really? Then why does it seem like every other post on this forum is somebody pumping up Trump? Why do they keep lying about the Democrats, saying they are the "enemy of crypto" when the facts simply don't support that?

The only reason I can think of is that they support the Republican political agenda, e.g. deporting 5% of US workers, getting into a trade war with China, and making abortion illegal. Since Bitcoin has done so well under Democrats, there is simply no other explanation.

Honestly, I never cared about anything else in the election other than bitcoin. You and I have argued with each other many times and if you pay attention, you will see all my discussions only mention bitcoin. You have brought up the issue of abortion all the time but I have never wanted to argue with you about it because I am not an American like you. Abortion policy in the United States has nothing to do with my country, why should I care? But for crypto, it will affect my life and that's why I support people voting for Trump.

Look on this forum, besides you, is there anyone else who regularly brings up the issue of abortion?
Everyone has different views and perspectives on life, just like the pictures below. You shouldn't call people liars just because they don't think the same way as you, we should respect each other's decisions.

Source: Internet

[bitLeap]

Kamala I don't believe that they can bring some good change especially for crypto since they are already been known that they are anti crypto. So most likely people will experience hell under their term so people should pick right leader which can bring good growth and adaption to new improvements to their country.

Kamala is not someone who can be trusted when it comes to crypto regulation, because she has a vision that is basically not much different from Biden. You could say she is carrying out the task of continuing what Biden left behind and look at how bad crypto regulation is during the Biden administration. Although Trump is not the best, at least he is closer to the crypto community and has promises to fulfill if elected. His promises are quite clearly recorded everywhere so that Trump will occupy it whether on a large or small scale. The point is that this political war involves the position of bitcoin and crypto in the US, everything will be determined in the upcoming election. I hope that US citizens, especially crypto activists there, will use their voting rights to choose the right candidate.

[Easteregg69]

I got 5 million MAGA.

I paid 35 dollars for 6 millions.

You missed me?

Edit. I spend one million on "make eth great again". "MEGA".

Portfolio manager.

You have USA selling your bitcoin on Kucoin if you don't crack down.

"Confiscated" And you be like I only obey the law?

Getting a great idea could be illegal long term. Where I steps in.

[B00TY_MASHER]

I’m tired of all of the posturing and politicizing of Bitcoin. The short sighted and simple minded will literally vote for the devil and give up their civil liberties just to see Bitcoin “pump”.  Have we not learned that politicians can’t be trusted. Even RFK is willing to sell out just to get a seat at the table.

[Antotena]

I’m tired of all of the posturing and politicizing of Bitcoin. The short sighted and simple minded will literally vote for the devil and give up their civil liberties just to see Bitcoin “pump”.  Have we not learned that politicians can’t be trusted. Even RFK is willing to sell out just to get a seat at the table.

I though I'm the only person sick and tired of this Kamala and Trump Bitcoin discussion. Do people here really think government really cares about Bitcoin and crypto over their own dollar they vouch for American citizens to protect and serve the country? How many people in the US buy and hold Bitcoin if not that they just have good business relationship, I'm not sure Bitcoin should be taking side with any of them. If Trump were to be in the whitehouse right now, he wouldn't have said good stuff about Bitcoin.

I heard election is slated to be November and I'm just skeptical what is going to happen that day. The way Kamala is moving slowly with campaign, I'm afraid of that woman and the political men around him. Literally all my Gif are suggesting her anytime I open my phone, they have taken up the media and social media space.

[bbc.reporter]

I mean Trump may claim to be pro-bitcoin but he couldn't explain it to save his life.   He only came out in support of it to pander for votes.  Communism and socialism aren't the same thing.  Socialism has some good aspects that are important to human well being, the same as being anti-big government does. 

But if you're going to say Kamala want's communism, than the same can be said about Trump wanting a dictatorship.  What these should lead people to understand is that both are horrible for this country, and the US political system is a JOKE. 

Regardless of who wins I don't see it making a huge change on the effect of bitcoin and it's value.  But, we shall see.

Socialism is okay if the people running the government more properly very much similar to some western European countries. Their taxes might be higher if we compare this to much of the other countries, however, they have free healthcare, better public schools and universities, better infrastructure and they take care of their countrymen much better.

On the claims that Kamala wants communism, they are only internet jokes very much similar to what you mentioned on Trump being a fascist. It will be funny for some and others it will not.

[jaberwock]

The ultimate purpose of this discussion is still bitcoin, people are just concerned about its future and want to know what it will look like after the election is over. No one here cares about Trump or Harris as much as you think.

Really? Then why does it seem like every other post on this forum is somebody pumping up Trump? Why do they keep lying about the Democrats, saying they are the "enemy of crypto" when the facts simply don't support that?

The only reason I can think of is that they support the Republican political agenda, e.g. deporting 5% of US workers, getting into a trade war with China, and making abortion illegal. Since Bitcoin has done so well under Democrats, there is simply no other explanation.

Because they are Trump fans, and as with any Trump fan, they just want to show how much they adore and love and worship Trump at any place given, including bitcoins discussion section of a bitcointalk forum, thinking that would somehow help trump I suppose? It won't, but that's what a trump fan would think anyway.

In reality, crack downs on bitcoin is not a crack down on bitcoin, it's crack down on scammers in crypto space, and they are not really capable of seeing that. Yes, as a judge Kamala will keep on finding criminals and put them in jail, which she did all her life before getting into politics, so that's what she will continue to do. "cryptospace" is what they call scammers who steal money and then put to jail, and cry for help from crypto space later on, sorry I can't shed no tear for scammers.

[tread93]

My only wish is this speculation on more crackdowns under Kamala Harris' administration will not be true. However, is it certain that bitcoin and the other cryptocoins will not pump if Harris is victorious on November? Arthur Hayes certainly speculates that it will not matter if a Republican or Democrat will win. He predicts that bitcoin and the cryptospace will certainly pump under Trump or Harris hehehehe.

The storyline is different, however. The people in social media are beginning to call Harris a communist hehehe.



Kamala Harris, the vice president of the United States, aims to maintain the Biden administration’s stringent stance on cryptocurrency regulation.

Harris is reportedly working with Brian Deese and Bharat Ramamurti, two former economic advisers of the Biden administration who have heavily opposed the previous Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act of 2023 for being too permissive for issuers.

Were Deese and Ramamurti part of “Operation Chokepoint 2.0?”

In March 2023, the US banking system took a hit following the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the voluntary liquidation of Silvergate Bank. Signature Bank was also forced to close operations by New York regulators on March 12, two days after Silvergate Bank’s liquidation.


The sudden collapse of the three crypto-friendly US banks was called “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” by crypto venture capitalist Nic Carter, who saw it as a “coordinated effort” to unbank the crypto industry.

In a concerning sign for future crypto regulation, Deese and Ramamurti were allegedly part of the operation, according to Galaxy’s Thorn

Popular American business magazine Fortune has previously referred to Ramamurti as the “White House’s top crypto critic,” who served as a National Economic Council Deputy Director in the White House until October 2023.

This is another reason why Harris’ choice of economic advisers spells a tougher stance for the crypto industry, added Thorn

Read in full https://cointelegraph.com/news/kamala-harris-may-continue-the-biden-administration-s-crypto-crackdown

I hope Harris fails hard. She should and has no merit, she has no real foot to stand on. She is not a good speaker, she looks like that freak creature from Star Wars, she’s not even black 😂 she is not smart. I heard she only got to the top by fucking her way up there which is blasphemy that she has been able to get all the way to the highest office. DO NOT LET THIS BITCH SUCCEED!!!

[d5000]

I may be a bit late in this thread, but my take is that this is not really a partisan issue.

It's a desperate intent of the shitcoin industry to continue with their ICO scams, bribing Trump to relax regulations so they can continue to freely operate their dubious business models which are being under scrutiny by the SEC now. They want to continue to profit from the popularity of the decentralized paradigm, but their business models are not decentralized at all.

If you see the word DeFi or DEX, you can in 95% of the cases replace the "D" by a "C". And the SEC is now going against this, as shown by the case against Uniswap. And that's what the shitcoin industry doesn't like.

So the shitcoin industry tries to coopt Bitcoin supporters to reach their goals, spreading fake information about Kamala Harris and endorsing Trump, and trying to make Bitcoiners believe that she and the Democrats are "anti-Bitcoin".

I'm not against ICOs nor against altcoins. You can do an ICO well and then it's an excellent crowdfunding mechanism. The problem is always transparency! And that's what the SEC always emphasized, as far as I'm aware of.

If you have a token and 20% of the tokens are premined for the founders, then that should be clearly laid out in the whitepaper of the token. I have analyzed the token distribution of some so-called "Ethereum killers" and it is really a shame how few information is available about the "Tokenomics" or token distribution. And yes, almost all of them have 20% or even 30% reserved for their founders, maybe locked for some years, but ready to be dumped when the moment is right.

This is the point. Bitcoiners are about to become the useful idiots of the shitcoin industry.

[mindrust]

I hope Harris fails hard. She should and has no merit, she has no real foot to stand on. She is not a good speaker, she looks like that freak creature from Star Wars, she’s not even black 😂 she is not smart. I heard she only got to the top by fucking her way up there which is blasphemy that she has been able to get all the way to the highest office. DO NOT LET THIS BITCH SUCCEED!!!

Wow you went all out in one post. Easy mate, save some material for your other posts. Even I hesitated to bring her success story up till now. that was some hardcore shiet.

[legiteum]

If you have a token and 20% of the tokens are premined for the founders, then that should be clearly laid out in the whitepaper of the token. I have analyzed the token distribution of some so-called "Ethereum killers" and it is really a shame how few information is available about the "Tokenomics" or token distribution. And yes, almost all of them have 20% or even 30% reserved for their founders, maybe locked for some years, but ready to be dumped when the moment is right.

I agree with everything you said here, and my business (for instance) is all about bringing transparency, fairness and stability to the memecoin universe. (Part of the reason we're doing such a long beta is to make sure the platform is extremely solid when lots of money starts going through it).

Haypenny gives you a display of the market analysis of every coin (and in the same format, so it's easy for people to figure it out), and shows the coin's lockout schedule, which can very easily be set by the founders. Founders can lock out all of the units at the time of the ICO, and create a schedule to slowly unlock units over (say) a period of two years--and the platform ensures that they cannot unlock no matter what until the period expires, so investors know there is no funny business.

My vision is that the market will mimic what stock IPOs have done in the modern era, but instead of contracts on paper it will be locked in with technology, making it faster, more efficient, and more airtight.

(There is a whole discussion about Haypenny's anti-pump-and-dump tools here).

The bottom line for me as for politics goes is: honesty makes money; transparency makes money; regulators and police catching fraudsters helps our industry. The safer it is for a casual investor, the more of them will invest, and this will multiply our market size. The crypto business started from a different mentality than this, but I think that needs to change if we want to grow 10x from where we are now.

[Z-tight]

Have we not learned that politicians can’t be trusted. Even RFK is willing to sell out just to get a seat at the table.

Apparently a lot of people have not learnt that, so they trust politicians. I am not from the U.S, so i am not eligible to vote in their election, but i don't really care who wins, and i think those who are supporting either candidates should focus on other things when casting their votes, that what the outcome would mean for BTC. The crazy things is that the forum is turning into a 'politics forum" with the number of threads related to trump or kamala and what it would mean for BTC if either candidates win, and that shouldn't be so.

[mindrust]

Have we not learned that politicians can’t be trusted. Even RFK is willing to sell out just to get a seat at the table.

Had RFKjr joined forces with Kabala, you wouldn’t call it “selling out”.

“Umm this move doesn’t benefit us let’s thrash it.”

The correct reaction should be:

“RFKjr understands crypto probably better than Trump as we have seen it in the bitcoin conference and he decided to join forces with Trump. That’s awesome!”

[Smack That Ace]

I’m tired of all of the posturing and politicizing of Bitcoin. The short sighted and simple minded will literally vote for the devil and give up their civil liberties just to see Bitcoin “pump”.  Have we not learned that politicians can’t be trusted. Even RFK is willing to sell out just to get a seat at the table.

Aren't Biden and Kamala politicians? And are they trustworthy?
You feel bored and tired because most people here support Trump instead of anyone in the Democratic party. But I bet if everyone supported Kalama, your attitude and mood would be much better, LOL.

As far as I know, RFK expressed support for the Democratic Party but all he got was indifference. If you were him, would you continue to beg people who don't value you? RFK made the right decision to stop running and support Trump because he knew he would be taken more seriously if he joined the Republican Party.

Human nature is selfish, even ordinary people like us will not be willing to help someone if there is no benefit, so there is nothing to criticize when politicians do everything to achieve their goals.

[Lucius]

I may be a bit late in this thread, but my take is that this is not really a partisan issue.

It's never too late for a good post, and I agree that the politicians have very skillfully thrown the bait, and the vast majority have taken a firm bite and won't let go as if their lives depended on it.

It's a desperate intent of the shitcoin industry to continue with their ICO scams, bribing Trump to relax regulations so they can continue to freely operate their dubious business models which are being under scrutiny by the SEC now. They want to continue to profit from the popularity of the decentralized paradigm, but their business models are not decentralized at all.

Trump Do Not Trust is first of all a businessman, and only then a politician - and you have well detected that those who donate to his campaign understand this and know that they can "buy" him because he will agree to anything just to achieve his goal. If we're going to be honest, most of the people who "invent" new altcoins/tokens and those who trade them don't have too many problems that something will turn into a scam, as long as they manage to profit from it.

If you see the word DeFi or DEX, you can in 95% of the cases replace the "D" by a "C". And the SEC is now going against this, as shown by the case against Uniswap. And that's what the shitcoin industry doesn't like.

So the shitcoin industry tries to coopt Bitcoin supporters to reach their goals, spreading fake information about Kamala Harris and endorsing Trump, and trying to make Bitcoiners believe that she and the Democrats are "anti-Bitcoin".

I'm not against ICOs nor against altcoins. You can do an ICO well and then it's an excellent crowdfunding mechanism. The problem is always transparency! And that's what the SEC always emphasized, as far as I'm aware of.

The transparency and legitimacy of projects from the world of cryptocurrencies has always been questionable, and it is no secret that such projects have caused huge financial losses for people around the world. All those who claim that the regulations are trying to destroy the freedom to create such projects often point out those state agencies as evil, but I don't think that every kid who has a computer should have a completely open path to create a cryptocurrency, list it on CEX or something and then cheat thousands of people for millions of $ - who will then turn to the authorities to help them find the culprit.

If you have a token and 20% of the tokens are premined for the founders, then that should be clearly laid out in the whitepaper of the token. I have analyzed the token distribution of some so-called "Ethereum killers" and it is really a shame how few information is available about the "Tokenomics" or token distribution. And yes, almost all of them have 20% or even 30% reserved for their founders, maybe locked for some years, but ready to be dumped when the moment is right.

This is the point. Bitcoiners are about to become the useful idiots of the shitcoin industry.

All of them create something for the community, but they behave worse than the central bank, so even though it makes some sense to leave some coins "aside" for the needs of project development, if that percentage is greater than 5%, I would not consider it anything other than calculated action with the goal that one day the owner and his assistants will make a massive profit if their project succeeds.

Bitcoin has always been good for achieving goals in the altcoins industry, and it is no wonder that it is still the case now. Fortunately, this drama will not last long, the only question is whether those who are the main actors will achieve their goals.

[Rabata]

If Trump wins the election, he will pay special attention to cryptocurrencies. He has already said that he will make some reforms if he wins. He will bring a big change, especially in the SEC. Gary Gensler is sure to be ousted and replaced by someone new to the crypto space. Although he did not mention the name but pointed to him. Although there is no precedent for direct firing department head of an independent federal agency, Gary Gensler could certainly step down to save his honor. But if this happens then surely a new wave will added in the crypto currency space but many believe that such political intervention on cryptocurrencies or Bitcoin will not bring long-term benefits.

[TwitchySeal]

As far as I know, RFK expressed support for the Democratic Party but all he got was indifference. If you were him, would you continue to beg people who don't value you? RFK made the right decision to stop running and support Trump because he knew he would be taken more seriously if he joined the Republican Party.

He ignores science when it's inconvenient, is a champion of MAGAs favorite conspiracy theories, he sympathizes with Putin and he likes picking up road kill to take home and eat.  Republican?  No.  Democrat?  No.  MAGA?  Match made in heaven.

[nelson4lov]

If Trump wins the election, he will pay special attention to cryptocurrencies. He has already said that he will make some reforms if he wins. He will bring a big change, especially in the SEC. Gary Gensler is sure to be ousted and replaced by someone new to the crypto space. Although he did not mention the name but pointed to him. Although there is no precedent for direct firing department head of an independent federal agency, Gary Gensler could certainly step down to save his honor. But if this happens then surely a new wave will added in the crypto currency space but many believe that such political intervention on cryptocurrencies or Bitcoin will not bring long-term benefits.

This has been my bias on the US presidential elections so far. Under Biden and Kamala, US debt and inflation are close to all time high and there were very serious crackdown on crypto in the last 3 years alone. Kamala has shown that she knows very little about crypto. But Trump knows a lot more. I mean, he even spoke at the Bitcoin Nashville conference even though some of those promises won't be fulfilled, it's good to have a president that understands crypto and why favorable laws will bolster the Bitcoin movement because whether we like it or not, economies built on fiat are bound to suffer from inflation due to infinite money printing.

[d5000]

All those who claim that the regulations are trying to destroy the freedom to create such projects often point out those state agencies as evil, but I don't think that every kid who has a computer should have a completely open path to create a cryptocurrency, list it on CEX or something and then cheat thousands of people for millions of $ - who will then turn to the authorities to help them find the culprit.

Agree mostly.

Many people in the Bitcoin (and crypto) world were hugely angry with Sam Bankman-Fried, and they had all the right to that - because he did behave in a criminal way, misappropiating customer funds. But: how do you prevent this? With increased transaparency!

For some reason however, some (not all!) of the "crypto community" are much more lenient with projects where a "D" promises "decentralization", which are completely unregulated but centralized. Or when they see they can "stake" their Bitcoin on an exchange, even if Bitcoin offers no PoS at all, so ... where do the "staking income" actually come from? May it be a Ponzi even?

And yes, as long as platforms can offer products like "Bitcoin staking" without any obligation to clarify where the funds come from, then the risk increases that we see another FTX. So I would require the SEC or the authority in charge in my country to actually demand this transparency from platforms.

I'm slightly disagreeing in one of the points perhaps because I do think that "every kid" should be able to "create a cryptocurrency". However, even that kid should then learn that if they decide that this crypto has a premine and will benefit them, it has to provide transparent information to the customers if they want to trade that crypto, at least on a CEX platform. And not only the source code.


What I would expect as a crypto owner from the Harris campaign if I was an US voter was however some clarity: There is the more radical anti-Bitcoin (and anti-crypto) fraction at the Democrats around Elizabeth Warren, and there is also an anti-privacy fraction. I would appreciate some distance of the Harris campaign from these groups. And crypto users leaning to the Democrats should fight against their projects, presenting good alternatives. The best the Democrats can do is focusing on investor protection without trying to "shrink" the crypto sector.

[legiteum]

[...]
but I don't think that every kid who has a computer should have a completely open path to create a cryptocurrency, list it on CEX or something and then cheat thousands of people for millions of $ - who will then turn to the authorities to help them find the culprit.

My business is allowing "every kid" to create a digital currency and play around with it, and trade it in a highly controlled environment. As a grizzled veteran of ultra-large-scale high-availability high-dollar-volume system, that last thing on earth I want is for kids to be writing software that handles billions of dollars of other people's money.

The solution is to get those "kids" out of the business of creating a technical platform and needing to protect it, and just allowing them to come up with a cool meme and branding that they promote and get (the other kids) interested in--but all in the context of a solid tech platform made by grown-ups with rules enforced that don't allow any funny business. Coming up with a hot new meme is something any kid can do--but creating a platform that secures people's investments is something that must be left to the grown-ups.