If Kamala Harris wins, Bitcoin will be fine.

[DeathAngel]

Bitcoin will continue to work as intended regardless of who wins the election in November. I don’t think there is any doubt though that the market will react more kindly in the short term if Trump wins. It’s public knowledge that he & the Republicans are vocally more positive about Bitcoin that the Democrats with Elizabeth Warren ‘and her goons.’

[FatFork]

You raise a fair point - we shouldn't assume Bitcoin will tank if Kamala wins just because Trump is friendly towards crypto.  Bitcoin has shown itself to be resilient no matter who's in power. 

While the US is an important player in the global crypto landscape, it is still only one piece of the pie and  bitcoin has spread far and wide around the world at this point.  Even if US policies shift, it likely wont spell doom for Bitcoin given its decentralized nature and broadening userbase. 

I suppose the bottom line is that Bitcoin seems capable of rolling with the political punches.  Its value lies in its permissionless and borderless qualities - qualities that no administration can easily undermine through regulation alone.  Bitcoin will likely keep on keeping on, regardless of what happens this November.

[coolcoinz]

The influence is there, Bitcoin being banned in the US would mean backward 10 years, not counting the ripple effects.
But the thing is that is just fearmongering from the orange guy to get votes, unless you vote for me, it's the end of your crypto savings, nothing more.

Even Harris knows the amount of support bitcoin has in the US and the sway Black Rock and other ETF owners have in Congress. The ban is out of the question, but various limitations, especially for miners and private holders (KYC wallets) definitely are. Democrats know they can't simply ban bitcoin but they can make it as inconvenient to hold as possible and that's their goal.

Bitcoin itself will be fine if she wins, but ths simple fact that she wants to promote Gensler, who was instrumental in delaying bitcoin ETFs and threatening various exchanges and altcoin operators like Ripple is something to think about. Why Gensler, who was proven to be incompetent in Congress and grilled for losing in court inf not for the fact that he's well known for fighting cryptocurrencies? Same cryptocurrencies Trump has warmed up towards in the last few months?

[Ever-young]

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.

It's not just any and any how elections, the US government election, and who occupies the presidential seat have always left a concern and debate of their influence on bitcoin; this should be because of them being among the countries with the largest economies. 
 
Nevertheless, it's just a matter of us knowing what we stand for and the kind of support we should give to Bitcoin. People just pay so much attention to things that will matter little to Bitcoin. Kamala might not even be a pain in the ass of bitcoin; it could just be a neutral ground.

[Sonia_123]

Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy has gotten the attention of crypto supporters since he has promised them a favourable regulations and Bitcoin reserve,also promise to remove SEC Chair Gray Gensler who is always criticize the Crypto Industry whereas Kamala Harris is set on resetting the crypto regulations which may not be good at all for crypto,it's obvious that she will be adopting Biden's stronger stance on crypto regulations.


https://coingape.com/crypto-political-donations-hit-190m-how-will-upcoming-elections-impact-industry/

[Faisal2202]

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 totally agree with you. People are often misled by news outlets, believing that if Harris wins, she won’t do anything positive for the crypto industry. Many think Operation Choke Point was initiated by Biden, and since Harris is part of his administration, they assume she won’t address it. However, Harris might not have the power to act on these issues yet, especially since Biden has withdrawn from the presidential race. Consequently, people might think Kamala will be competing against Trump from Biden’s side.

Personally, I believe Harris could make positive contributions to the crypto field. I also prefer her to win over Trump for various reasons, though I understand this is a personal opinion and not a question you asked. I’m not a U.S. citizen and don’t have a vote, but I find Trump’s statements and actions to be somewhat exaggerated and doubt he will fulfill many of his promises. Apologies if this offends any supporters, it’s merely an observation, not a personal attack. Let’s wait and see how things unfold.

[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 wish I could agree with you but I think I do not.  Vast majority of the voters do not care about the key issues of their own Country but about small details that are often worthless and useless too.  If they were to vote with the candidate who was looking for solutions to the key issues, they would have had the issues solved already long ago.

I can't speak for the American voters but I think they care enough about immigration issues which are now associated with national security, rising cost of living, inflation, tax cuts, foreign wars and conflicts that the country is involved in, abortion, and so on and so forth.

Despite that, however, I guess most of us don't trust politicians and their false promises. Although we care about the key issues discussed, we're not expecting so much from them. We won't be surprised if the problems persist beyond their terms.

Politicians care about Bitcoin too, they only pretend they do not.  But they obviously do not care about it as in they want to help it out and support it, but the opposite.  And it often shows.  Trump has found this to be a great way to attract many more voters toward him, and you can see how many would vote Trump ONLY for his stance on Bitcoin.  And this shows that a lot of voters mostly care for their own benefits, not for the country as a whole.

I honestly think they don't care about Bitcoin. They've grown rich and powerful with fiat, although they care about reaching out to all communities big and small to earn votes and win.

While I agree that many voters mostly care about themselves, I don't think many would vote for Trump solely because of his Bitcoin stance. That he claims to be a Bitcoin supporter may be a big factor to some but I don't think it's the only factor. In which case, I won't be surprised if there are Bitcoin supporters who don't even vote for him.

[yhiaali3]

I agree, Bitcoin will be fine whether Trump or Kamala Harris wins, it may be better if Trump wins but it will not be worse if Kamala Harris wins. So there is no need for all these fears and exaggerations raised by some pessimists.

When Bitcoin was a weak child it continued to grow and flourish despite the intense hostility and rejection that it had at the beginning, so now that it has become a young man (so to speak) and has gained more momentum, strength and adoption, I do not expect it to be in a bad state at all.

[Reatim]

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.

Exactly. I think Americans are overplaying (as usual) their influence to the world. Yes, it is most likely that the market will be affected and certain regulations and policies implemented in the US regarding crypto may affect a lot of investors but to say that Harris winning will be the downfall of bitcoin is just silly and misleading.

Bitcoin should not have been involved in political wars in the first place and it seems like Trump’s team as well as his supporters are using crypto to motivate (more like scare) people into voting for him. Time and time again, I have mentioned that while Trump may have publicly supported bitcoin and crypto we don’t actually know if he will stay true to his words. Trump is not the only leader in the world. If he wins and does good by crypto then cheers to our American investors and crypto enthusiasts but don’t expect that bitcoin will reach new ath just because he was elected president. It won’t work like that.

Whoever wins, Bitcoin will be fine.

[Catenaccio]

I agree, Bitcoin will be fine whether Trump or Kamala Harris wins, it may be better if Trump wins but it will not be worse if Kamala Harris wins. So there is no need for all these fears and exaggerations raised by some pessimists.

Bitcoin will be fine with either Trump or Kamala in charge as a President.

When Bitcoin was a weak child it continued to grow and flourish despite the intense hostility and rejection that it had at the beginning, so now that it has become a young man (so to speak) and has gained more momentum, strength and adoption, I do not expect it to be in a bad state at all.

Let's make it viral to prevent Kamala Harris gets votes and becomes a next President.

If Kamala gets elected, "Bitcoin will be grown up a middle class kid..." ya know. It's what Kamala repeatedly answered about any question about her plans on economy and by repeating the non-sense answer, she shown that she has no plan, even no concept of plan for economy.

But forget about her, she won't be able to kill Bitcoin or stop its growth.

[nelson4lov]

Now I think about it, OP is obviously right. I don't know much about the US elections but my stance has been on Trump and  my bias is actually simple: Trump is good for Crypto. Kamala is bad for crypto. I listened to too much shenanigans and probably got too excited when Trump got to speak at the Bitcoin conference in Nashvile back in July or August (can't remember but should be around that time).

Bitcoin will still be here when the elections are over. I think the only thing that changes is that there might or may not be crypto friendly policies. I think that's the biggest incentive that crypto natives are hoping to get out of the elections should trump win because Trump winning would mean price go up (if he manages to do what he promised).

[uneng]

Now I think about it, OP is obviously right. I don't know much about the US elections but my stance has been on Trump and  my bias is actually simple: Trump is good for Crypto. Kamala is bad for crypto. I listened to too much shenanigans and probably got too excited when Trump got to speak at the Bitcoin conference in Nashvile back in July or August (can't remember but should be around that time).

Bitcoin will still be here when the elections are over. I think the only thing that changes is that there might or may not be crypto friendly policies. I think that's the biggest incentive that crypto natives are hoping to get out of the elections should trump win because Trump winning would mean price go up (if he manages to do what he promised).

Trump effect will be positive for Bitcoin, but on short run and only due to hype purposes, because investors are excited about the possibility of having the president of the most influent nation in the world as a Bitcoin supporter and enthusiast.

However, as soon as reality knocks the door, investors will realize Trump won't be so friendly to Bitcoin. After all, he will meet the expectations of the establishment where he is inserted and which is essential for his government to exist.

And as we know, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin goes on the exactly opposite route of governments' policies. I risk saying Trump wouldn't do anything for Bitcoin and its enthusiasts. Therefore, Bitcoin needs another reasons to survive and thrive, instead of putting all its expectations on a politician.

[d5000]

Bitcoin itself will be fine if she wins, but ths simple fact that she wants to promote Gensler, who was instrumental in delaying bitcoin ETFs and threatening various exchanges and altcoin operators like Ripple is something to think about.

I don't agree with many actions the SEC did under Gensler (for example, their recent Wells notice against OpenSea seems ridiculous), but most of their actions targeted two things as far as I remember:

1) Altcoins which ring a lot of Howey test "bells" because they are totally centralized and utilized to raise money for a business, like any security. Ripple is a good example actually, a permissioned blockchain managed in completely centralized fashion by a business very closely tied to the banking sector. Uniswap is another similar case, a "decentralized" service run in a completely centralized (but obfuscated) way.

2) Exchanges offering "staking" and similar services. In many cases this was not simply that they simply distributed the PoS rewards when they staked altcoins. Many did also offer Bitcoin "staking" models under the same name, which is grossly misleading as Bitcoin obviously does not offer any mechanism similar to PoS. So the "rewards" came from another activities -- new users perhaps?

What's the benefit for Bitcoin if these -- in my opinion, at least borderline shady -- business models are getting approval by any authority of any country? Isn't it more a risk if these business models can thrive, luring people into Ponzi-like "coins" and "services", only to then collapse, and make a lot of people lose money?

Some say that "Bitcoin will be well if the crypto sector is doing well". But I believe if we got rid at least of a part of these shady services which were targeted by the SEC the crypto sector could be more healthy.

I also don't believe that targeting cryptos is "Democrats' goal". AFAIK there are a lot of pro-crypto personalities in this party, like Shapiro, while there are others with strongly anti-crypto stances like Warren. It's a big tent party so this is to be expected. If Warren was the presidential candidate I perhaps would be more skeptical.

[tbct_mt2]

I don't agree with many actions the SEC did under Gensler (for example, their recent Wells notice against OpenSea seems ridiculous), but most of their actions targeted two things as far as I remember:

1) Altcoins which ring a lot of Howey test "bells" because they are totally centralized and utilized to raise money for a business, like any security. Ripple is a good example actually, a permissioned blockchain managed in completely centralized fashion by a business very closely tied to the banking sector. Uniswap is another similar case, a "decentralized" service run in a completely centralized (but obfuscated) way.

Gensler applies Howey test very arbitrarily and subjectively in his own ways and I would like to say Gensler, not SEC. as SEC. under this term, is centralized to his power till recent months when he got pressure to change.

According to arbitrary interpretation and application of Howey test, I read that people analyzed that this way, almost everything will be consider as security, even watches. It is bad management from SEC. under Gensler time and I hope that his time in SEC. will end soon. and this SEC. will have a new chairman who will be more accurately in applying Acts, Laws and Legislations that are existing to serve citizens, not to play these cards against citizens.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Now I think about it, OP is obviously right. I don't know much about the US elections but my stance has been on Trump and  my bias is actually simple: Trump is good for Crypto. Kamala is bad for crypto. I listened to too much shenanigans and probably got too excited when Trump got to speak at the Bitcoin conference in Nashvile back in July or August (can't remember but should be around that time).

Bitcoin will still be here when the elections are over. I think the only thing that changes is that there might or may not be crypto friendly policies. I think that's the biggest incentive that crypto natives are hoping to get out of the elections should trump win because Trump winning would mean price go up (if he manages to do what he promised).

Here again, are the thoughts of a politician with a political view from a political stance, concerning a subject of interest that caters for the macro economy of an individual, rather than the micro economy of the country and its government.

I don't like when cryptocurrency mostly Bitcoin, is used as the focal point for a personal political ambition because it could lead to more consequences for the cryptocurrency market, if things don't go as planned after the results of the election is announced.

Well, let's just call a spade a spade and agree that Trump only needs the vote from cryptocurrency investors and even if he were to win and show support to the cryptocurrency community, the policies he may enact may favour his government portfolio more than that of the investors, and it can't be compared to how things are right now, because we would see and know the difference once prices rise or fall, policies change and if newer  innovative opportunities arise and take a centre stage as a contributory effort from the crypto world.

[Davidvictorson]

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.

There many people who try to draw a correlation between bitcoin and the US elections. Is there going to be a positive, negative, or no correlation at all is the discussion. And why I like to think that the US election and its outcome is a big deal not just for bitcoin but for the world at large, I can't seem to shake the thought away that there is going to be some correlation. Whether it is positive or negative, that I do not know of but I can say it is not going to be neutral. Both parties have been talking big about bitcoin and there are folks from the community who are supporters of the candidates. Some have even gone as far as to make donations in bitcoin in a bid to court their graces should any one of them win. In the end those irrespective of the direction that bitcoin goes, we all will be fine.

[Ale88]

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

We are coming from 4 years of US government extremely against the cryptocurrencies, and the SEC received clear orders to make it difficult for everyone and yet we saw bitcoin doing several new ATH and we even got the BTC and ETH ETFs approved. I don't see what else could Harris do at this point, of course she'll keep being against cryptos but who cares? It was already too late to stop cryptos 4 years ago, it's too late now, nothing changed. I don't care who wins (I really despise both candidates) and bitcoin won't care either, as usual.

[Die_empty]

Personally, I believe Harris could make positive contributions to the crypto field. I also prefer her to win over Trump for various reasons, though I understand this is a personal opinion and not a question you asked. I’m not a U.S. citizen and don’t have a vote, but I find Trump’s statements and actions to be somewhat exaggerated and doubt he will fulfill many of his promises. Apologies if this offends any supporters, it’s merely an observation, not a personal attack. Let’s wait and see how things unfold.

Most people in the crypto industry think Donald Trump will be the best option for cryptocurrencies. The reason is that he had spoken publicly about his plans for the sector. But Kamala Harris has said nothing about the sector. She had made no promise, so Harris might continue with Biden's policies or become more stringent. I also find Trump's policies on immigration, gun control and police reforms faulty. His constant distortion of facts makes him untrustworthy. I am not also comfortable with some of Kamala's policies but she is my fair option.

[coolcoinz]

Bitcoin itself will be fine if she wins, but ths simple fact that she wants to promote Gensler, who was instrumental in delaying bitcoin ETFs and threatening various exchanges and altcoin operators like Ripple is something to think about.

I don't agree with many actions the SEC did under Gensler (for example, their recent Wells notice against OpenSea seems ridiculous), but most of their actions targeted two things as far as I remember:

1) Altcoins which ring a lot of Howey test "bells" because they are totally centralized and utilized to raise money for a business, like any security. Ripple is a good example actually, a permissioned blockchain managed in completely centralized fashion by a business very closely tied to the banking sector. Uniswap is another similar case, a "decentralized" service run in a completely centralized (but obfuscated) way.

2) Exchanges offering "staking" and similar services. In many cases this was not simply that they simply distributed the PoS rewards when they staked altcoins. Many did also offer Bitcoin "staking" models under the same name, which is grossly misleading as Bitcoin obviously does not offer any mechanism similar to PoS. So the "rewards" came from another activities -- new users perhaps?

What's the benefit for Bitcoin if these -- in my opinion, at least borderline shady -- business models are getting approval by any authority of any country? Isn't it more a risk if these business models can thrive, luring people into Ponzi-like "coins" and "services", only to then collapse, and make a lot of people lose money?

Some say that "Bitcoin will be well if the crypto sector is doing well". But I believe if we got rid at least of a part of these shady services which were targeted by the SEC the crypto sector could be more healthy.

I also don't believe that targeting cryptos is "Democrats' goal". AFAIK there are a lot of pro-crypto personalities in this party, like Shapiro, while there are others with strongly anti-crypto stances like Warren. It's a big tent party so this is to be expected. If Warren was the presidential candidate I perhaps would be more skeptical.

Warren has a group of close followers who jump when she asks them to, like Sherman. I'm a bit worried of them repeating lies long enough for them to be imprinted in people's minds, especially if these lies are backed by president.

Personally I'm in the group that thinks cryptos need bitcoin, not the other way round. I couldn't care less if Ripple gets wiped out or not, but SEC winning against them could make people think that it's a matter of time before they attack bitcoin. Maybe not bitcoin itself since it's decentralized, but companies that try to use it, exchanges and miners. Therefore I'd rather see the SEC lose than win and eliminate some shitcoins from the space. The way I see it, bitcoin looks better when all these shitcoins scam and implode around it and it keeps going like nothing happened.

[Akbarkoe]

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

We are coming from 4 years of US government extremely against the cryptocurrencies, and the SEC received clear orders to make it difficult for everyone and yet we saw bitcoin doing several new ATH and we even got the BTC and ETH ETFs approved. I don't see what else could Harris do at this point, of course she'll keep being against cryptos but who cares? It was already too late to stop cryptos 4 years ago, it's too late now, nothing changed. I don't care who wins (I really despise both candidates) and bitcoin won't care either, as usual.

If you look at what is happening, the government really influences bitcoin sentiment in my opinion, especially if it is the US, political policies will affect the view of how it will go in the future, whether we like it or not we have to watch even though we don't care who wins over the two candidates, the policies they might issue about crypto or most importantly Bitcoin are one of the things we need to consider.

I also don't care who wins because I am not a US citizen, but because it is related to bitcoin, it becomes more interesting, because Trump uses bitcoin as one of his campaign tools, but from Harris' side he has not given his views on Bitcoin, making it a double-edged sword that we cannot conclude yet, during Biden's time I think they are not tough on bitcoin or crypto, it's just that they discipline developers and business people in this industry.