Demonizing Gary Gensler is pointless and partisan

[legiteum]

As I have said here many times, attaching our business to US partisan politics is an extremely bad thing. If Bitcoin becomes known as a "Trump thing" in the United States, our market will, at best, be cut in half, but it will be subject to partisan attack on a daily basis if this branding holds.

Unfortunately, as this is politics, and people are very passionate about it, many people here on Bitcointalk and elsewhere have made a boogieman out of somebody as innocuous as the US SEC Chairman for the sole purpose of promoting their preferred presidential candidate, Donald Trump.

To be clear, I have no problem with somebody's political preferences: the 2024 US election is mostly based around the very deeply religious topic of abortion and people have very strong opinions about that subject. Americans will vote one way or another based mostly around that and a few other very controversial topics.

But none of this has anything to do with Bitcoin or the broader business. The right business decision here is to stay out of partisan politics, and make sure we have a product for both sides of the political divide here in the USA.

The doesn't mean we have to stay out of the policy discussion, and talking about specific policies that both sides of the political divide can support is very productive.

But using crypto policy as an excuse to promote your favored political candidate or political party--or ideology--is counterproductive, and even an insult to the reader's intelligence.

[d5000]

I generally agree that Bitcoin won't really benefit from becoming a partisan issue. What I however think is that the pressure candidates for government positions feel and make them adopt friendlier stances about crypto policy is actually an interesting phenomenon. That after Trump's crypto promises the Democrats had to rapidly organize an event called "Crypto for Harris" indicates clearly that both parties consider the crypto owners an important part of the electorate.

However, I have a more specific question with respect to the topic of the SEC and the figure of Gensler in particular: Has Gensler at any time expressed an opinion against Bitcoin?

I have googled this a bit and in general only found unfriendly policies and stances of Gensler's SEC against altcoins, mainly those which could be classified as securities. And others which are directed against services of the "crypto industry" with business models like staking, or those which try to look like they are decentralized (like "DeFi" or "DEXes" like Uniswap) but at its core are a centralized financial business.

My main issue with Gensler is that he classified some coins as securities which I would not classify that way, mainly Dash, and maybe the influence of the SEC to "debank" some exchanges. But I haven't really found evidence of "hostility" against Bitcoin, he (or other SEC officials) even clarified several times that Bitcoin was not a security. Anthony Scaramucci even said in January that Gensler was a "Bitcoin maximalist".

[legiteum]

I generally agree that Bitcoin won't really benefit from becoming a partisan issue. What I however think is that the pressure candidates for government positions feel and make them adopt friendlier stances about crypto policy is actually an interesting phenomenon. That after Trump's crypto promises the Democrats had to rapidly organize an event called "Crypto for Harris" indicates clearly that both parties consider the crypto owners an important part of the electorate.

However, I have a more specific question with respect to the topic of the SEC and the figure of Gensler in particular: Has Gensler at any time expressed an opinion against Bitcoin?

I have googled this a bit and in general only found unfriendly policies and stances of Gensler's SEC against altcoins, mainly those which could be classified as securities. And others which are directed against services of the "crypto industry" with business models like staking, or those which try to look like they are decentralized (like "DeFi" or "DEXes" like Uniswap) but at its core are a centralized financial business.

My main issue with Gensler is that he classified some coins as securities which I would not classify that way, mainly Dash, and maybe the influence of the SEC to "debank" some exchanges. But I haven't really found evidence of "hostility" against Bitcoin, he (or other SEC officials) even clarified several times that Bitcoin was not a security. Anthony Scaramucci even said in January that Gensler was a "Bitcoin maximalist".

When you cut through the partisan BS about Gensler, you see a man just doing his job as is required by Congress and the Constitution.

His actual problem is that he seems to have pissed of a few billionaire Bitcoin whales and they have launched a holy war against him, dumping tens of millions of dollars into the election. Why were these billionaires pissed off? We'll never know. Maybe they have actual grievances, and maybe, well, they deserved government scrutiny.

Gensler acts within the laws laid down by Congress. If these billionaires were actually against the law, they would be lobbying Congress, not demonizing one particular US government enforcement leader (and to be clear, some in the industry actually are lobbying Congress and because they want things done, they are lobbying both sides). By going after Gensler, it tells me they are against the enforcement of the law and not the law itself.

And one other thing: the large-scale market for cryptos is pretty new, in government-years (even if its pretty old in tech-years). Sadly, the way laws are honed in republics like ours is... litigation. Litigation turns vague laws into clearer laws because one side wins and the other loses, making it clear what will happen next time. Gensler has resided over his job at a time when there has been a lot of fraud and consumer damage committed by malign elements in our business. When consumers lose money, they complain to their elected reps, and that gets to leaders like Gensler.

None of this is an evil plot by somebody who secretly hates Bitcoin.

[un_rank]

As I have said here many times, attaching our business to US partisan politics is an extremely bad thing. If Bitcoin becomes known as a "Trump thing" in the United States, our market will, at best, be cut in half, but it will be subject to partisan attack on a daily basis if this branding holds.

There is a bigger world outside the US and impact of the elections will not be shaping Bitcoin's future, it will have an effect but will not make Bitcoin a "Trump thing". Bitcoin is outside politics, people who use crypto however will have opinions about political issues and relate that to policies they have experienced.
I have seen as many political topics in Bitcoin discussion from you than any other user.

However, I have a more specific question with respect to the topic of the SEC and the figure of Gensler in particular: Has Gensler at any time expressed an opinion against Bitcoin?

He expressed an opinion against crypto in general, saying "Crypto is a field 'that's been rife with fraud and manipulation''^[1] and seems to be against the idea of decentralization and not submitting under their regulations and have an Oracle database. The entire video linked was not especially hostile and neither are other comments I have seen that were made by him.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm6rjg_mgB0

- Jay -

[kryptqnick]

While the upcoming US elections have certainly made discussions on this forum more political, I think that Gary Gensler has been strongly disapproved of long before that. He's been the Chair of the SEC for a while, and many associated the lack of approval of Bitcoin ETFs by the SEC for such a long time with this guy. He also happens to be a Democrat, which doesn't help in the current efforts of Trump to make Bitcoin a partisan issue.
But ETFs did get approved, and it was under the Biden administration, while they were constantly rejected during the Trump administration. So it's true that it's not that simple and that we should focus on facts and policies rather than politics.

[d5000]

He expressed an opinion against crypto in general, saying "Crypto is a field 'that's been rife with fraud and manipulation''

Yes, I remember that one. But he clearly said "crypto" and not "Bitcoin". And I actually agree partly: Above all in the altcoin sector there a lots of very dubious projects. For example 90% of the so-called DEXes are not really decentralized but are based on a contract with an owner, and let's not talk about the manipulation in memecoin markets. And then there are the outright scams like Bitcoin Savings & Trust, FTX, BitConnect, OneCoin, Generación Zoe and so on ...

[...]seems to be against the idea of decentralization and not submitting under their regulations and have an Oracle database.

Thanks for the video. In general he again says more about the crypto industry actors than about Bitcoin itself. His remark "i'ts not that decentralized" refers probably to the centralized altcoins that are flourishing and to centralization tendencies in general in the crypto sector and I think this also cannot be denied unfortunately. Even the ETFs are part of this tendency.

I have not really understood what he means with the remark about the Oracle database, at that point all these guys were interrupting each other   It seems that he said that some people like to invest in products with Oracle databases as ledgers and others into blockchains.

The part which actually can be interpreted as hostile is the comment about ransomware, but also, at that part that was more of a free-flowing conversation where they were already talking about crypto crime for a while, and I don't fully "got" the contributions of the other people there he was reacting to.

When you cut through the partisan BS about Gensler, you see a man just doing his job as is required by Congress and the Constitution.

I agree, however I think officials can actually influence decision making by their own views of the subject as laws are not always clear and have to be interpreted (like you correctly write, sometimes through litigation).

Such officials can actuall give their office a certain "spin". However, I see the spin in the case of Gensler is more directed against fraudulent behaviour of 1) "crypto businesses" like exchanges and 2) "unregistered securities", like some altcoins.

[legiteum]

He expressed an opinion against crypto in general, saying "Crypto is a field 'that's been rife with fraud and manipulation''^[1] and seems to be against the idea of decentralization and not submitting under their regulations and have an Oracle database. The entire video linked was not especially hostile and neither are other comments I have seen that were made by him.

Saying the crypto field has been rife with fraud is a... fact.

If I do business in an area where there is a lot of crime, I want the police to come to my area to get rid of the crime and arrest the criminals. If the Chief of Police says, "that area is rife with crime", I am glad he is saying that, because it's true, and it means the authorities will hopefully clean up the crime in my area. That is not the same as the police being "against" my business--it's exactly the opposite.

What we want from Gensler and other authorities is to clean up the crime for our business which will pave the way for a lot more money to be put into it. If consumers feel like they will just get defrauded all of the time when they invest, they won't do it anymore.

And saying that most users of Bitcoin today use an "Oracle database" is just another true fact: most people today use a broker or an app to keep their Bitcoin holdings (which is just a number in a database, not real keys). Pointing out a true fact is not "against" decentralization, it's just a fact. And authorities like Gensler need to observe the facts if they are going to fight the crime that ruins our industry. And saying that a person using a broker who keeps their account in a central database is "not that decentralized" referring to the overall situation the consumer is in is... just plain true.

One thing authorities like Gensler needs to deal with are non-experts who hear some buzzwords about Bitcoin, and assume that if they invest in Bitcoin they cannot possibly lose their money because "blockchain" or something. But these crappy or criminal business take people's money all of the time, and they feed off of people who just hear some hype about Bitcoin. I am sure Gensler has had to answer questions from press members like, "but if it has blockchain, and it's decentralized, then how could somebody possibly get ripped off?". Then he has to explain how it all works, and saying, "but it's not that decentralized" is a perfectly correct response, albeit only part of it.

[Iranus]

When you cut through the partisan BS about Gensler, you see a man just doing his job as is required by Congress and the Constitution.

In any movie and to make it more dramatic and interesting we need a protagonist and an antagonist. Unfortunately this time he was chosen as the antagonist. I agree with you that what he did was just following orders from people in high positions but if he accepts the villain role then it's normal for him to be hated by people who love the main character.

Biden is not a bitcoin or crypto-friendly president as he once proposed a 30% tax on miners but fortunately, this proposal was vetoed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. And as far as I remember, Gensler was Biden's pick when he was elected in 2021, so it's no surprise that Gensler is representing Biden to fight against the crypto industry.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-latest-budge-proposal-222303883.html


Not only did he propose taxes, he also vetoed many bills related to bitcoin and crypto, and under the Democrats they shut down all crypto mixing services, arrested the founder of Samourai Wallet...is all this good for bitcoin and crypto?

https://x.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1783247761917239343

[legiteum]

Biden is not a bitcoin or crypto-friendly president as he once proposed a 30% tax on miners but fortunately, this proposal was vetoed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Lots of Democrats voted against that too. This doesn't have to be partisan.

And the Bitcoin mining industry is not the same as Bitcoin. These are businesses that get taxed by the government and need to deal with regulations like any other. Their job is to lobby Congress just like other big industries like oil, pharma, and so on.

And as far as I remember, Gensler was Biden's pick when he was elected in 2021, so it's no surprise that Gensler is representing Biden to fight against the crypto industry.

Gensler is not "fighting against the crypto industry", he is enforcing the law. Trying to reduce fraud in our business helps our business, it doesn't hurt it.

Not only did he propose taxes, he also vetoed many bills related to bitcoin and crypto, and under the Democrats they shut down all crypto mixing services, arrested the founder of Samourai Wallet...is all this good for bitcoin and crypto?

Maybe you don't live in a country where children's hospitals are regularly attacked by anon-crypto-using terrorists, but I do. This is not exactly an easy debate to have, because there is real and very terrible crime being committed.

And if our business is associated with terrorism and cyber-extortion, it will be very bad for the business and it will never grow into the main stream. There is a balance we need to achieve here and it is not an easy one.

But in any case, Gary Gensler has nothing to do with any of this. Blaming him for these actions is like blaming the traffic cop for the speed limit being too low. The guy is just doing the job of enforcing the laws Congress passes.

[un_rank]

Yes, I remember that one. But he clearly said "crypto" and not "Bitcoin". And I actually agree partly:...

Yes the focus was on crypto in general but that rhetoric has been used on the entire crypto network without any distinction, we can assume bitcoin is thrown into the mix as-well.

As I said earlier he was not being hostile during the interview and in other interviews I have seen, but putting fraud in crypto in the spotlight when lot more fraud happens through the US dollar is disingenuous.

Saying the crypto field has been rife with fraud is a... fact.
...
What we want from Gensler and other authorities is to clean up the crime for our business which will pave the way for a lot more money to be put into it. If consumers feel like they will just get defrauded all of the time when they invest, they won't do it anymore.

The world is rife with crime, criminals will use gold, gift-cards, real estate, anything at all to get money off you. If we want to put fraud on a spot-light, fiats should be first in line to be cleaned up.

And saying that most users of Bitcoin today use an "Oracle database" is just another true fact

He never said that in the video and you just gave a statement with no evidence to back it up.

One thing authorities like Gensler needs to deal with are non-experts who hear some buzzwords about Bitcoin, and assume that if they invest in Bitcoin they cannot possibly lose their money because "blockchain" or something.

The Bitcoin blockchain does offer one of the highest levels of security. If I market a house to be secure it does not cover you giving the front door keys to a thief.

I am sure Gensler has had to answer questions from press members like, "but if it has blockchain, and it's decentralized, then how could somebody possibly get ripped off?". Then he has to explain how it all works, and saying, "but it's not that decentralized" is a perfectly correct response, albeit only part of it.

It is that decentralized, not a correct response at all. If you want to talk about other layers like exchanges, ETFs, that is a different topic.

- Jay -

[legiteum]

Yes, I remember that one. But he clearly said "crypto" and not "Bitcoin". And I actually agree partly:...

Yes the focus was on crypto in general but that rhetoric has been used on the entire crypto network without any distinction, we can assume bitcoin is thrown into the mix as-well.

As I said earlier he was not being hostile during the interview and in other interviews I have seen, but putting fraud in crypto in the spotlight when lot more fraud happens through the US dollar is disingenuous.

Saying the crypto field has been rife with fraud is a... fact.
...
What we want from Gensler and other authorities is to clean up the crime for our business which will pave the way for a lot more money to be put into it. If consumers feel like they will just get defrauded all of the time when they invest, they won't do it anymore.

The world is rife with crime, criminals will use gold, gift-cards, real estate, anything at all to get money off you. If we want to put fraud on a spot-light, fiats should be first in line to be cleaned up.

The world is rife with laws and law enforcement too. Why should people willfully turn their back on one form of crime? Why should one kind of crime victim not be given any relief? Just because there are other victims they haven't saved? That's a bizarre argument.

And saying that most users of Bitcoin today use an "Oracle database" is just another true fact

He never said that in the video and you just gave a statement with no evidence to back it up.

I understand he said that, but I don't know the exact location (there was a whole thread about this here).

One thing authorities like Gensler needs to deal with are non-experts who hear some buzzwords about Bitcoin, and assume that if they invest in Bitcoin they cannot possibly lose their money because "blockchain" or something.

The Bitcoin blockchain does offer one of the highest levels of security. If I market a house to be secure it does not cover you giving the front door keys to a thief.

Yes, but lots of charlatans have marketed blockchain as "absolutely secure" or some such. Selling anything that way is fraudulent, and it seems proper that our governments should try to prevent that form of fraud.

I am sure Gensler has had to answer questions from press members like, "but if it has blockchain, and it's decentralized, then how could somebody possibly get ripped off?". Then he has to explain how it all works, and saying, "but it's not that decentralized" is a perfectly correct response, albeit only part of it.

It is that decentralized, not a correct response at all. If you want to talk about other layers like exchanges, ETFs, that is a different topic.

What "Bitcoin" means to most consumers is the thing you click on in an app or a broker website, not "public/private key pairs". Bitcoin did not achieve a trillion+ dollar valuation on the backs of us technical folks, it did so because millions just wanted to make money.

Hence, defacto, those "layers" are Bitcoin as far as most consumers are concerned, which is all Gensler was saying there.

If you get over the paranoia and self-victimization rampant in the community sometimes, you would see that he's actually not saying he's concerned with the technical Bitcoin network itself, but the layers that most consumers use, which is where all the problems arise. Many interpreted what he said there as being "against Bitcoin" but the exact opposite is true.

[un_rank]

The world is rife with laws and law enforcement too. Why should people willfully turn their back on one form of crime? Why should one kind of crime victim not be given any relief? Just because there are other victims they haven't saved? That's a bizarre argument.

No one is saying turn your back on anything. Before bitcoin and crypto the medium of financial crime does not get the spotlight. No one says, "2 US dollar scammers have made away with so and so amount", the medium is not the issue but the scam. With crypto, state sponsored headlines highlight the medium and make that out to be the problem.

From your logic I am actually asking for victims of fiat crime amongst others to get relief.

Yes, but lots of charlatans have marketed blockchain as "absolutely secure" or some such. Selling anything that way is fraudulent, and it seems proper that our governments should try to prevent that form of fraud.

I have made no argument against that.

If you get over the paranoia and self-victimization rampant in the community sometimes, you would see that he's actually not saying he's concerned with the technical Bitcoin network itself, but the layers that most consumers use, which is where all the problems arise. Many interpreted what he said there as being "against Bitcoin" but the exact opposite is true.

You were again bringing up generalities with no facts so I will not respond to the "most" assumption.
But to this, it is not up to me to interpret what he or anyone says beyond what is actually said. What I am saying is the fraud tag has been used to crack down on different forms of privacy and decentralization, chase down crime but allow me mix my coins if I have to. It is that simple.

- Jay -

[legiteum]

The world is rife with laws and law enforcement too. Why should people willfully turn their back on one form of crime? Why should one kind of crime victim not be given any relief? Just because there are other victims they haven't saved? That's a bizarre argument.

No one is saying turn your back on anything. Before bitcoin and crypto the medium of financial crime does not get the spotlight. No one says, "2 US dollar scammers have made away with so and so amount", the medium is not the issue but the scam. With crypto, state sponsored headlines highlight the medium and make that out to be the problem.

From your logic I am actually asking for victims of fiat crime amongst others to get relief.

All crimes that involve money involve mentioning the medium. When a bank robbery is reported, they don't say, "staplers, those connected to the counter with little cables and... some other stuff was stolen". I'm pretty sure they talk almost exclusively about US dollars being stolen, in the US at least. And surely at least 99% of US law enforcement today is still dedicated to crimes involving US dollars, so... I'm not sure what the problem is here.

What I am saying is the fraud tag has been used to crack down on different forms of privacy and decentralization, chase down crime but allow me mix my coins if I have to. It is that simple.

I think the fraud tag has been used to crack down on... fraud. The internet itself has fostered a ton of new forms of fraud and consumers have been victimized to the tune of billions of dollars by it. I don't think anybody interprets that as law enforcement being "anti-internet".

And also not unique to Bitcoin--or even the internet generally--is an ongoing trade-off we make as a society between freedom and safety. Today, hospitals in the USA are being attacked on a weekly basis by criminals, leading to pain, suffering, and financial losses. The attackers are using certain forms of crypto (but not plain old Bitcoin for instance) in order to carry out these attacks. On the other side of the equation, its not apparent what the value of keeping large monetary holdings secret from a government with a valid law enforcement inquiry is to the average citizen.

I don't get to store a thousand pounds of TNT in my garage because I think it's cool. I would be putting my neighbors at risk and I don't have any valid reason to do that. I'm all for our society being "as free as possible", and I think the default position of our government should be freedom first--but that has limits.

[un_rank]

...And surely at least 99% of US law enforcement today is still dedicated to crimes involving US dollars, so... I'm not sure what the problem is here.

It is not talked about like a vulnerability of the US dollar that cause it to be stolen or that it is used to traffic drugs or for money laundering. When it is bitcoin, it is not only the medium but what facilitated the fraud.

If you still do not get it you might be the one with the bias here.

- Jay -

[legiteum]

...And surely at least 99% of US law enforcement today is still dedicated to crimes involving US dollars, so... I'm not sure what the problem is here.

It is not talked about like a vulnerability of the US dollar that cause it to be stolen or that it is used to traffic drugs or for money laundering. When it is bitcoin, it is not only the medium but what facilitated the fraud.

If you still do not get it you might be the one with the bias here.

As I said, Gensler himself is clearly focused on the fraud surrounding Bitcoin like brokers and so on. That is good for Bitcoin because it makes the market safer for the average consumer. Gensler has never, ever insinuated weaknesses in Bitcoin itself--he taught Bitcoin at MIT and knows perfectly well about what he is talking about.

As for bias, well, right back at you: there is often a strong "victimhood complex" running through the Bitcoin community wherein people like to see themselves as fighting some kind of mysterious and powerful evil that is out to get them. In this forum it seems like there are several posts per day that say in essence, "they should make Bitcoin legal in the USA! freedom!"--but Bitcoin is perfectly legal in the USA and always has been, and it's grown into a trillion dollar market cap thanks to that legality. But I guess for some people it's no fun unless they think they are "fighting the man" or something .

[Iranus]

Lots of Democrats voted against that too. This doesn't have to be partisan.

And the Bitcoin mining industry is not the same as Bitcoin. These are businesses that get taxed by the government and need to deal with regulations like any other. Their job is to lobby Congress just like other big industries like oil, pharma, and so on.

I don't know how many Democrats are against that idea but you have to admit it to me: Biden is not friendly with bitcoin when he wants to impose that huge tax.
You need to clearly distinguish that increasing taxes and not paying taxes are completely different, bitcoin miners have never evaded taxes. You have to admit this and if passed, it would be a huge hurdle for the bitcoin mining industry in the United States.

Gensler is not "fighting against the crypto industry", he is enforcing the law. Trying to reduce fraud in our business helps our business, it doesn't hurt it.

One thing you need to realize is that all of Gary's accusations against crypto companies are about money, most of the lawsuits end when those companies pay fines.
That means they just want to make more money from this market, I don't see any good intention like promoting market development or reducing fraud as you said.

Maybe you don't live in a country where children's hospitals are regularly attacked by anon-crypto-using terrorists, but I do. This is not exactly an easy debate to have, because there is real and very terrible crime being committed.

And if our business is associated with terrorism and cyber-extortion, it will be very bad for the business and it will never grow into the main stream. There is a balance we need to achieve here and it is not an easy one.

But in any case, Gary Gensler has nothing to do with any of this. Blaming him for these actions is like blaming the traffic cop for the speed limit being too low. The guy is just doing the job of enforcing the laws Congress passes.

That's the price you pay for living in a country that values ​​human rights and freedom.
Maybe my country doesn't have those things but there will be other problems that are just as bad, every country has its own problems and that is the price we pay when we make choices.

[legiteum]

Lots of Democrats voted against that too. This doesn't have to be partisan.

And the Bitcoin mining industry is not the same as Bitcoin. These are businesses that get taxed by the government and need to deal with regulations like any other. Their job is to lobby Congress just like other big industries like oil, pharma, and so on.

I don't know how many Democrats are against that idea but you have to admit it to me: Biden is not friendly with bitcoin when he wants to impose that huge tax.

He is not "friendly" to Bitcoin miners. It's a multi-billion dollar industry run by billionaires. Politicians tend to want to tax things like that so they don't have pay for the government with less popular taxes like those on average individuals.

You need to clearly distinguish that increasing taxes and not paying taxes are completely different, bitcoin miners have never evaded taxes. You have to admit this and if passed, it would be a huge hurdle for the bitcoin mining industry in the United States.

I never meant to imply that miners evade taxes. And yes, if the US taxes the mining industry then it would decrease their profits, and even potentially reduce the percentage of hashrate there is in the USA. Two things:

1. Reducing the percentage of Bitcoin hashrate taking place in the USA would probably be a healthy thing for Bitcoin generally since it will make it more diverse; at worst, this will make no difference to the average Bitcoin user.

2. None of this has anything to do with Gary Gensler .

Gensler is not "fighting against the crypto industry", he is enforcing the law. Trying to reduce fraud in our business helps our business, it doesn't hurt it.

One thing you need to realize is that all of Gary's accusations against crypto companies are about money, most of the lawsuits end when those companies pay fines.
That means they just want to make more money from this market, I don't see any good intention like promoting market development or reducing fraud as you said.

Now that's just silly: you are implying that Gensler is just doing what he's doing in order to raise revenue for the US government? These fines are absolutely meaningless compared to the US federal budget, which is several trillion per year.

And reducing fraud in a market helps that market. It's not Gensler's job to promote Bitcoin or any other product. But his actions certainly help a lot of them.

Maybe you don't live in a country where children's hospitals are regularly attacked by anon-crypto-using terrorists, but I do. This is not exactly an easy debate to have, because there is real and very terrible crime being committed.

And if our business is associated with terrorism and cyber-extortion, it will be very bad for the business and it will never grow into the main stream. There is a balance we need to achieve here and it is not an easy one.

But in any case, Gary Gensler has nothing to do with any of this. Blaming him for these actions is like blaming the traffic cop for the speed limit being too low. The guy is just doing the job of enforcing the laws Congress passes.

That's the price you pay for living in a country that values ​​human rights and freedom.
Maybe my country doesn't have those things but there will be other problems that are just as bad, every country has its own problems and that is the price we pay when we make choices.

Yes, and it's a trade-off. There are a lot of things governments make illegal in order to keep the population safe, even though that cuts into the freedom of some individuals. It's all part of living in a society. As the saying goes, "some people ruin it for everybody".

[TwitchySeal]

Biden is not a bitcoin or crypto-friendly president as he once proposed a 30% tax on miners but fortunately, this proposal was vetoed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. And as far as I remember, Gensler was Biden's pick when he was elected in 2021, so it's no surprise that Gensler is representing Biden to fight against the crypto industry.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-latest-budge-proposal-222303883.html

The tax would be only on the electricity used, not based on any revenue or profit like the headline seems to imply.  But that's besides my point.  

Bitcoin is decentralized, it doesn't rely on any government to be nice to miners.  If all the sudden a bunch of miners make less money, or have to stop mining, bitcoin will be fine. 

Right now the US makes up 4% of the global population and US miners solve ~35-40% of all bitcoin blocks.  Wouldn't it be better for Bitcoin if that number went down?  Maybe it would have no effect, I'm not sure, but I don't see how it would be "bad for crypto" if less crypto were mined in the country that already mines the most crypto.  Not to mention the benefit to Texas' shitty power grid.

As far as Gary, I don't like his policies, too ambiguous, I hope Kamala wins and I hope she nicely asks him to step down and he does.  But I also don't think the whole "we want a government that supports crypto but will complain about any and all taxes or regulations" (aka "the billionaire told the billionaires what is best for us, and what is worst for us, and we want to be rich, and also we just fell out of a coconut tree, so we believe them") is short sighted - especially for all you number go up people.  

Yes, a Trump administration will almost certainly cause a spike in price, largely because it means Gary will be gone.  But like any financial policy, there's always a plus and a minus.  We already know how devastating it can be when an exchange collapses, or a scammer pulls off the biggest scam ever - all the bad things we all cry about most happens.  

So over-regulation makes it harder for honest crypto focused businesses  to be profitable and innovate, which makes general adoption more difficult, which means your bitcoin won't be worth as much.  

But under-regulation makes it easier for dishonest businesses/people to be profitable, which makes general adoption more difficult, which means your bitcoin won't be worth as much.

Is how much a Bitcoin is worth now or might be worth tomorrow really the only way to measure whether what's happening is good for it in the long run?  It sure seems like the silicon valley crypto bros are treating bitcoin like a shit coin on the general election block chain and a large portion of the crypto community falling for it.