If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine.

[d5000]

Some folks are really obsessed with the US election. I can understand it partly because Trump, as the first candidate ever in US election history (afaik) has taken a very pro-crypto stance.

But that doesn't mean that Bitcoin will not be fine if Kamala Harris wins. Even if she didn't reveal her stance on crypto/Bitcoin (yet) and is likely to continue the Biden approach which is more skeptical to "crypto", above all altcoins.

For those reasons:

1) Even in Biden's "anti-crypto" tenure Bitcoin has done well. Not only did the price rise, but ETFs were approved, even for Ethereum.

2) The US are already a leading Bitcoin/crypto country. They don't need Trump for that. In the mining sector, they are "the" single leading country. There are also several exchanges in the country. At least ~50 million American people hold crypto according to estimations.

3) Altcoins are far more affected by the SEC policy than Bitcoin. The SEC's actions under Gensler were mostly directed to altcoin exchanges, the "staking" business (which is not even really PoS-style staking but often a ponzi-like construction of some exchanges) and DeFi projects which are not really decentralized, like Uniswap.

4) The US are only 4% of the world population. Bitcoin is a global currency. In addition, as shown above, in the US population crypto has already a high adoption (almost 20% of the population having already bought or held crypto). The potential for future price growths lies mainly outside the US where adoption is often still much lower, even in rich countries in Europe for example.

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

Discuss & Disagree

[Churchillvv]

When I read things like this I feel so happy that some people are every enlightened about bitcoin towards the US election. The fact that lots of people's opinion of bitcoin is basically hanging around the US election has always pissed me off because they seem to see bitcoin only limited to the US, forgetting the obvious fact that bitcoin is global currency and not a national currency even though bitcoin might be affected with the election it will only be a temporary price change.

@OP I can't love this post less because it has all my idea and opinion of the election and bitcoin expressed.

Bitcoin is not a US coin it's a global currency, the US election has nothing to decide for bitcoin, stop limiting bitcoin to US only with the so called election predictions.

[tabas]

IIRC, Biden during his very first week discussed crypto and said that he would go into it but then nothing happened to fruition. And so if Harris wins, I'd expect the same thing. With or without her stance about Bitcoin or crypto, she'd focus more into other concerns that needs to be addressed with her governance.

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

I don't take it seriously, whoever wins, there's a possibility that Bitcoin will go up or down. However, due to volatility, I think that it is going to be the main reason why it could be as low as that projection but nothing in relation to Harris winning the election. And at this point, I'm not expecting to see it go back to $30k, we're in a bull run and once this election ends I'm expecting that money would flow back to the market. Just expect that this election will have some agendas and black propaganda to dismay each other's turfs and supporters.

[nakamura12]

Trump only takes advantage of people who are into crypto so that's why he's taken a pro-cryptp stance as you have said. Even if trump didn't do it then bitcoin would still be fine just as the same as if Kamala Harris bitcoin would also be fine. As Churchillvv explained that it is not a us coin or crypto but global crypto where anyone can use if they want even those countries where crypto is banned. We all know rhat there are still people who still use crypto even if their government bans the use of crypto.

[Hazink]

Bitcoin will do just fine irrespective of who ever wins the election; even if Kamala wins and has ill intentions against Bitcoin, the worst-case scenario will be that she will limit US citizens from making use of Bitcoin and place some kind of unfriendly policy on big firms that hold large amounts of Bitcoin. 
 
There is no doubt that the Bitcoin price can be influenced by the US government, but there is a limit to what they can do; they can't total crash the price to nothing. If Kamala wins the elections and decides to make some negative moves against bitcoin, bitcoin will only suffer for a while, and after a while the influence will die off and the community will just get over it.

[mirakal]

Who says bitcoin won't be fine if Kamala Harris won? Just because Kamala is not highly verbal about bitcoin and the crypto space does not mean that she isn't supporting bitcoin in silent. We still don't know her future plans for bitcoin if ever she won, and even if she won't prioritize bitcoin same like Biden, that won't change the fact that bitcoin is already good for majority of its users and investors.

I think we are just speculating too much. Bitcoin is never a single country commodity but a worldwide currency and investment tool. Even Harris or Trump won't change that fact.

[Stepstowealth]

But that doesn't mean that Bitcoin will not be fine if Kamala Harris wins. Even if she didn't reveal her stance on crypto/Bitcoin (yet) and is likely to continue the Biden approach which is more skeptical to "crypto", above all altcoins.

I refuse to believe that the success of Bitcoin starts with the success of one individual or one event this is why I'm not really concerned about the result of the United States election because I know that with whichever candidate that wins Bitcoin will still do just fine. The people who are worrying about how bitcoin will do under any of the candidates have nothing else to worry about because there are more important things like trying to get more bitcoins before bitcoin gets a new high value.

[alani123]

Many people don't realize that Gary Gensler isn't a bad guy.
Gensler didn't delve into unscrupulous prosecution of crypto just based on stereotypes like it being "notorious markets" supposedly. Believe it or not, this type of stereotype was something that was hurting bitcoin for the longest time.

The notorious markets narrative was pushing bitcoin to the sidelines for so long. Lack of market access and regulation kept BTC and crypto away from the mainstream.
But even at the hint that there might be regulatory clarity many investors started putting great efforts to create market access and one thing lead to the other. More users, more market access demand, more investment and so on.

The one thing I would criticize Gensler for is not stepping in early enough to stop shit like FTX and Celsius. I'm not afraid to say it but I think Gensler is the good guy out of the equation. Even if Trump wins, I hope he keeps him in his position. Gensler pushed large capital firms to create ETFs with conditions favorable to the user and Gensler also created a framework so security scams sold as cryptos can't hurt people in his country so easily, all while allowing exchanges to operate, but with strict standards and making sure they abide by regulations (at least after the FTX fiasco).

So Biden isn't really an anti-crypto president. And with the influence crypto has now, I think Kamala might have a similar stance also. It's funny hearing Trump call her a communist. She might be a bit backwards on some topics, but many leftists would wish she was actually a communist. In fact she's a staunch neoliberal capitalist. Having some social tendencies doesn't mean she's against big company capitalism just like Trump would be.

[White pawn]

For those reasons:

1) Even in Biden's "anti-crypto" tenure Bitcoin has done well. Not only did the price rise, but ETFs were approved, even for Ethereum.

It's very certain that Bitcoin has a very strong force and even during the tenure of trump it was doing very well in it's crypto space,and the rule of Biden too came up tho trying to alter it's existence but Bitcoin has still survived it and I presume with or without  Kamala Harris wins Bitcoin will still be fine.

[d5000]

Many people don't realize that Gary Gensler isn't a bad guy.

I have some divided feelings about Gensler. On one hand his focus is clearly on scams and dubious services, mainly ICOs and services which are close to ponzis, and the "CeDeFi" sector (services marketing themselves as "DeFi" but are centrally coordinated) and of course on the correct operation of crypto exchange. And I think it's good that there's finally a focus on investor/customer protection in this field, so at least in the US a new FTX becomes less and less likely. So in this point I fully agree with you.

On the other hand there were some actions I think that should be criticized. Like the recent action against OpenSea. While NFTs indeed are also used for very dubious speculative purposes, the SEC is imo not entitled to intervene here as NFTs simply cannot be securities. I don't know exactly how the US regulates the ecommerce sector, but in my country it would be customer protection who has to become active in cases where NFT buyers are scammed, not the securities authority.

I think thus in general the SEC's influence on the crypto sector is probably more positive than many think, as you correctly posted, but they could be still better and clearer.

But I believe the narrative that the SEC and Gensler are "harming crypto" is coming mostly from the parts of the industry who refuse to adapt to the stricter customer protection standards.

So Biden isn't really an anti-crypto president. And with the influence crypto has now, I think Kamala might have a similar stance also.

I think at least with 50 million Americans holding crypto a real "anti-crypto" policy is highly unlikely. Many have cited Elizabeth Warren's crypto law project, and the fact that Warren is still quite influential in the Democratic Party. While not even that law would affect Bitcoin really too much - however miners could be driven out of the US - I could understand some fears if Warren or other people supporting that law (Graham, Manchin etc. ...) were the presidential candidate or VP candidates.

[LDL]

For those reasons:

1) Even in Biden's "anti-crypto" tenure Bitcoin has done well. Not only did the price rise, but ETFs were approved, even for Ethereum.

It's very certain that Bitcoin has a very strong force and even during the tenure of trump it was doing very well in it's crypto space,and the rule of Biden too came up tho trying to alter it's existence but Bitcoin has still survived it and I presume with or without  Kamala Harris wins Bitcoin will still be fine.

Say Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, their political comments often lead to controversy surrounding Bitcoin. Political comments focused on Bitcoin to win the polls, but after winning, took the opposite position on Bitcoin. It should be remembered that the United States has a strong position in the Bitcoin market, which is why many people consider Bitcoin as an important tool for voting. Yes but I think if Kamala Harris wins the vote then very likely Kamala Harris will take a positive decision on Bitcoin and that will definitely create a revolution in the global market for our Bitcoin.

[Darker45]

In the first place, Bitcoin is not a concern. Quite frankly, Bitcoin is a non-issue in this election. There are certain Bitcoin fanatics who seem to put Bitcoin at the center stage. Some crypto-centered media is also making it appear as if Bitcoin is a key issue. It is not. No wonder why Bitcoin or even crypto was never mentioned in the debate.

We're all supporting Bitcoin but lest we end up a non-thinking cult we should always attach ourselves with the reality. The reality is that these politicians don't care about Bitcoin at all. The majority of the voters don't care about Bitcoin at all. There are more important issues out there.

I bet this thinking is coming from those who also raised questions like "Will Bitcoin dump following Kobe Bryant's death in a helicopter crash?" or "Selena Gomez won't get pregnant, will it affect Bitcoin's price?"

[martinex]

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

Discuss & Disagree

Sentiment towards bitcoin and the Crypto market is always an interesting object to discuss and of course many associate it with the presidential election later. My opinion, whoever the President will be, BTC will be fine and the price targeted by the analysis will also come as soon as possible. Well, from some of what I read, many are still optimistic that by the end of 2024 it will be $150K and %200K by the end of 2025.

[pinggoki]

Trump only takes advantage of people who are into crypto so that's why he's taken a pro-cryptp stance as you have said. Even if trump didn't do it then bitcoin would still be fine just as the same as if Kamala Harris bitcoin would also be fine. As Churchillvv explained that it is not a us coin or crypto but global crypto where anyone can use if they want even those countries where crypto is banned. We all know rhat there are still people who still use crypto even if their government bans the use of crypto.

This I can wholeheartedly agree because they're politicians after all, it's unlikely that they will not use anything that's in their disposal and grab on to every opportunity that's presented to them, and given that it's Trump who's been a businessman first before a politician then there's the high likeliness that he's going to be exploiting all the possible loopholes and opportunities and I think that we at least can learn something about that one even if we don't like the way that Trump conducts himself or we are just not into his principles. I totally agree that people will still use bitcoin even if there's restrictions but you got to understand that restrictions will still apply and not everyone that uses crypto won't give in to all the pressures of having to deal with such restrictions in the first place, I think that even with our complacency towards this kind of thing, there should still be some resistance on our community that would bring about change regarding general cryptocurrency restrictions.

[MusaMohamed]

Politicians are elected as Presidents, finish their presidential terms and they will step down with transition of that position and power to another politician who can continue vision and plans of a previous President and move next with their own completely new vision and plans.

Since 2009, Bitcoin was created, has been growing up a lot through many Presidents in the USA. who come from both parties, Republic Party and Democrat Party, with very good adoption and already shown its super strong survival strength. I am optimistic with future of Bitcoin under any next President in the USA. either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, a new President won't be powerful enough to destroy it.

No single President on Earth can destroy a decentralized Bitcoin network and its global communities.

If a nation shuts down all Bitcoin nodes, node operators will use VPNs and continue their works. If a nation ban Bitcoin mining, mining companies there will make a migration to neighbor countries like what happened with China in 2020 and a great migration to other countries in Middle East and to the USA.

[adaseb]

Yes Bitcoin will be fine. If she wins there might be a temporarily dump like we saw when he was losing the debate but in the long run it will be fine.

But if Gensler is still in the SEC and he keeps suing all these tokens which he calls unregistered securities then we will get issues with many non-bitcoin type of coins. Honestly who knows, one day he might say that Ethereum is a security even though we got the ETH ETFs launched already.

So bitcoin will survive but it would of been more successful if she didn't win the election.

[d5000]

Yes Bitcoin will be fine. If she wins there might be a temporarily dump like we saw when he was losing the debate but in the long run it will be fine.

Yes, a temporary dump is possible - but only if Bitcoiners still insist that Bitcoin depends on US politics ;P

But if Gensler is still in the SEC and he keeps suing all these tokens which he calls unregistered securities then we will get issues with many non-bitcoin type of coins.

Maybe. But would that affect Bitcoin? I believe the altcoin market is much more dependant on Bitcoin's moves than Bitcoin is on the altcoin market.

The exceptions may be memecoins, which are more like a casino and are according to a recent study are the category of coins with most chances to move in a "contrarian" sense than Bitcoin and thus could be used for hedging. This means however not that memecoins influence the Bitcoin price either. Only perhaps the Ordinals/Runes based coins could create some demand for Bitcoin but they are already dying and thus their influence may be minimal.

Thus, stricter regulations for altcoins would most likely not affect Bitcoin at all, or only minimally.

Weaker investor protections for ICOs, altcoins, service providers and DeFi, as written above, could even mean a higher crash risk. We've seen with Terra/Luna that a failed altcoin can influence Bitcoin negatively.

So bitcoin will survive but it would of been more successful if she didn't win the election.

I think the only Trump announcement that could really significantly affect Bitcoin's price is the creation of a Bitcoin reserve, i.e. the "Don't sell a Bitcoin" policy. It would not boost Bitcoin to the moon for itself, but could cause a 20-30% pump perhaps.

However, one would have to wait if this pump can be sustainable. If more countries follow that line and incorporate seized BTC into their reserves or even actively buy some, then this would indeed create a bigger pump. But it's also possible that US and El Salvador could be the only countries following this policy, and then the impact would be again not so overwhelming.

For mass/retail adoption, in contrast, I believe Trump's other announcements about Bitcoin at least are neutral.

[FinneysTrueVision]

Bitcoin will be fine regardless of which of these clowns wins but I still prefer a hands-off approach. The laws with which they are trying to regulate Bitcoin and crypto are antiquated and are often misapplied to legitimate services. As dumb as I think NFTs are, it is ridiculous they are trying to make the argument that pictures of apes are securities.

The sanctions against a piece of software, Tornado Cash, and the arrest of their developers is also an abuse of power. This is not only something that affects altcoins, it affects privacy in general. We already saw the Samourai developers arrested for money laundering and being an unregistered money transmitter. It is also not just isolated to the United States because centralized businesses around the world are forced into compliance through coercion and intimidation by regulators.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

Discuss & Disagree

I would rather agree. I was thinking the opposite. Let's imagine Trump wins and everyone expects the price of bitcoin to go to the moon because he announced he would make pro-bitcoin policies and create a reserve with seized bitcoin.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite happens, which is what usually happens in the markets. It would be the ideal scenario for retail investors to be fleeced by big players.

And looking at the opposite case, I don't think that just because Kamala wins, it will be catastrophic for bitcoin, as you suggest.

[NotATether]

These "projections" that Bitcoin will fall to 30.000 or so if Harris wins are, in my opinion, completely baseless and overestimating the US influence on Bitcoin.

I saw some people saying that these 'crypto news sites' that we always hear about, that many of them just pull price predictions out of their arse, if they are not using a lot of technical analysis. So it's mainly a lot of guesswork in telling people the Bitcoin price because you either want the price to go up/down or you want to make people influence something so the price doesn't go that direction.