Pro-crypto Mark Cuban to replace Gensler if Harris wins

[legiteum]

https://www.tradingview.com/news/u_today:cf6e9e8c5094b:0-head-of-sec-that-s-job-i-would-take-pro-crypto-billionaire-mark-cuban/

Mark Cuban is a consistent pro-crypto champion and a huge donor to the Democrats and Harris. He can name his job if Harris wins the election--and he already has: he wants to replace Gary Gensler.

Trump, meanwhile, will almost undoubtedly hire a fellow convicted criminal to the post, and one who will prioritize Trump's own personal crypto businesses over Bitcoin and everything else. According to economic analysts, the US economy will do far better under Harris than it would under Trump:

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/09/04/goldman-saches-u-s--economy-kamala-harris-donald-trump

Part of the reason is that Trump is promising massive tariffs on all imported goods that will raise the price of almost everything in the US and destabilize the economy (which will force average consumer investors to sell their Bitcoin so they can pay the bills after they lose their jobs). Under Trump, almost everything a business needs to operate will cost a lot more, which will be devastating.

And Trump has made it clear he does not need Congress to approve his plan, so nothing will stop him from doing this regardless of who wins the majority in Congress:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-warns-congress-tariffs-plan-1958202

[coolcoinz]

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

It's funny that Democrats are now throwing Gensler under the bus.
On the other hand I doubt they will abandon him completely. There's probably another warm seat waiting for him.

[legiteum]

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

It's funny that Democrats are now throwing Gensler under the bus.
On the other hand I doubt they will abandon him completely. There's probably another warm seat waiting for him.

Gensler will probably return to academia.

Mark Cuban is going to make a great SEC Chairman, however....

[stompix]

Mark Cuban is going to make a great SEC Chairman, however....

Are you serious?
The guy that started the ponzi scheme with Voyager and the guy that got tricked into buying Bitconnect and was stupid enough to download a maware wallet and got drained out of $800k in crypto?
This guy?

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

Gensler is pro-bitcoin, he is anti-shitcoins, and every so-called crypto "investors" hate this because this is how they make money, with stupid schemes and pirting trillions of worthless coins, NFT, and pure vaporware.

[d5000]

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

Pressures from the shitcoin industry, probably And Cuban would fit, see:

Cuban is well known for his support of cryptocurrencies – not only Bitcoin but also altcoins, such as Dogecoin and Solana.

From the Tradingview article.

I don't know much about Cuban (apart from that he was mentioned recently at a rally by pro-crypto Democrats), but for me that looks like a quite obvious propaganda move. So at least the more naive parts of the "crypto industry" could support Democrats. (That doesn't mean I changed my mind supporting Trump though ) And if what @stompix wrote is true then it's not the right guy for that job.

I personally don't really mind Gensler, it will be indifferent for Bitcoin if he stays or not in my opinion. However if I was to vote I would replace him with somebody having more idea about a regulation that could make ICO crowdfunding easier, but with still strong investor protection (But I'm also not from the US.)

[legiteum]

I personally don't really mind Gensler, it will be indifferent for Bitcoin if he stays or not in my opinion. However if I was to vote I would replace him with somebody having more idea about a regulation that could make ICO crowdfunding easier, but with still strong investor protection (But I'm also not from the US.)

I don't mind him much either. Protecting consumers against fraud makes all of us money because it means we will get more mainstream investors with a lower risk premium. The thing holding trillions of dollars back from consumer investors is people's perception that the crypto business is full of fraud and criminals--and Trump would reinforce that perception.

Gensler has been made into a boogieman by a few billionaire Bitcoin whales who have pumped $millions into Trump's campaign because they want revenge.  Harris choosing a pro-crypto SEC Chairman like Cuban pops that balloon, and forces the Trump supporters here to admit they only want Trump because he's a criminal like themselves, or because he wants to make abortion illegal, or whatever their thing about Trump is--and that it actually never had anything to do with Bitcoin or the crypto business (which was just a convenient excuse).

[legiteum]

Here's another story about Mark Cuban and his taking over of the SEC:

https://www.newsweek.com/mark-cuban-sec-fox-cavuto-1959882

[shield132]

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs. He is also not a man of his word, a hypocritical person, who says one thing and does a different thing.

Gensler is pro-bitcoin, he is anti-shitcoins, and every so-called crypto "investors" hate this because this is how they make money, with stupid schemes and pirting trillions of worthless coins, NFT, and pure vaporware.

Gary Gansler said that he didn't want to approve Bitcoin ETFs because Bitcoin is easily manipulated but he approved Bitcoin Futures ETFs without hesitation. He tried to postpone Bitcoin Spot ETF approval as long as possible and even after that, big guys like BlackRock forced him to approve ETFs. Gary, despite the fact of how he wasn't going to approve Bitcoin ETFs, approved it because of BlackRock's pressure and soon later he also approved Ethereum ETFs and there are many more ETFs on the way to get approved, which I believe some of them will get approval.
Gary is pro-blackrock, not pro-bitcoin.

[PrivacyG]

Are you serious?
The guy that started the ponzi scheme with Voyager and the guy that got tricked into buying Bitconnect and was stupid enough to download a maware wallet and got drained out of $800k in crypto?
This guy?

legiteum is one person I can never take too serious considering their Posts are for the most part anti Trump messages.  I get they do not like him and there is no thing wrong with that but it is very dubious to see an anti Trump statement in almost every single post of theirs.  It exhausted me to the point where it is almost like reading bot replies on Reddit.

[stompix]

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs.

You do realize that you can be against IOU's promises of owning Bitcoin and being pro Bitcoin, right?
I wonder how in the world people advocate all day for owning your own keys, for decentralization, for being against banks and then they cheer when companies launch ETFs and see this as a good thing?

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?

Gary, despite the fact of how he wasn't going to approve Bitcoin ETFs, approved it because of BlackRock's pressure and soon later he also approved Ethereum ETFs and there are many more ETFs on the way to get approved, which I believe some of them will get approval.
Gary is pro-blackrock, not pro-bitcoin.

How is he pro-Blackrock when he was forced (according to you) to approve their ETF?

[DeathAngel]

The new SEC Chair is less important to us now. We got the Spot ETFs through, I don’t really care about shitcoins, so I don’t need the new Chair to be pro Altcoins or anything. Gensler was hostile towards Bitcoin for a long time, he got forced into approving the ETFs by court & also pressure from Blackrock, so I wish nothing but misery for any career he embarks on now.

[legiteum]

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs.

I wonder how in the world people advocate all day for owning your own keys, for decentralization, for being against banks and then they cheer when companies launch ETFs and see this as a good thing?

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?

You mean, did Satoshi design Bitcoin to be a meme investment instrument for millions of consumers investing their retirement funds? No, no he didn't .

Bitcoin mostly stopped being used for what it was built for in about 2012...

Gary, despite the fact of how he wasn't going to approve Bitcoin ETFs, approved it because of BlackRock's pressure and soon later he also approved Ethereum ETFs and there are many more ETFs on the way to get approved, which I believe some of them will get approval.
Gary is pro-blackrock, not pro-bitcoin.

How is he pro-Blackrock when he was forced (according to you) to approve their ETF?

I think I've called out the same thing before: in some arguments, the Illuminati Conspiracy is the thing mysteriously holding Bitcoin back because it upsets the power structure of bla bla bla bla. But then, when it's convenient, the same Illuminati is pro-Bitcoin because they secretly control politicians and force them to do things that are pro-Bitcoin, which is the only reason that the politicians we hate (for unrelated reasons) could possibly do something that is so obviously pro-Bitcoin.

It's almost like there's a political agenda here and Bitcoin is just an excuse, and the conspiracy theories are just tools.

[shield132]

I thought Gensler was so pro bitcoin and so good for the ecosystem that there's no need to replace him

Gary Gensler isn't pro Bitcoin. He was against Bitcoin ETF approval but he was forced to approve and that's how we got ETFs.

You do realize that you can be against IOU's promises of owning Bitcoin and being pro Bitcoin, right?
I wonder how in the world people advocate all day for owning your own keys, for decentralization, for being against banks and then they cheer when companies launch ETFs and see this as a good thing?

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?

Now I realize that you are right about one thing, Satoshi wouldn't like ETFs. I am confused. I personally think that massive Bitcoin adoption is destroying Bitcoin but at the same time it's what people want. My conclusion is that the Bitcoin community wanted Bitcoin ETF approvals, so if Gary goes against it, he isn't pro-bitcoin but on the other hand, like you said, Bitcoin ETFs aren't pro-bitcoin in reality because we have read whitepaper and know Satoshi's vision. So I'm really confused with what I wrote above but nothing makes Gary pro-bitcoin, he is an SEC chairman and that's what he cares about.

How is he pro-Blackrock when he was forced (according to you) to approve their ETF?

In pro-Blackrock I mean that he didn't stand by his own words and instead did what Blackrock told him to do. He could stand strong and didn't approve ETFs. He shouldn't also have approved Futures ETFs because he think that Bitcoin is volatile and in that case, futures make Bitcoin, as an investment option, even more volatile.

[Smack That Ace]

legiteum is one person I can never take too serious considering their Posts are for the most part anti Trump messages.  I get they do not like him and there is no thing wrong with that but it is very dubious to see an anti Trump statement in almost every single post of theirs.  It exhausted me to the point where it is almost like reading bot replies on Reddit.

I remember when the election topics were getting more and more popular on the forum and most people were supporting Trump, he was just one of the few people supporting Harris and it seemed like he couldn't stand alone against the crowd. Then he had a thread telling people to stop associating bitcoin with politics because it's bad for bitcoin but ironically, he was the one who kept mentioning bitcoin, trump and Harris as what was going on. It doesn't stop there, as you said, he always finds opportunities to badmouth and insult Trump even when the topic has nothing to do with Trump.

I also enjoy participating in discussions on election related topics as I believe this will more or less impact the future of bitcoin. But I'm also starting to get tired of seeing legiteum's posts because he doesn't care about anything but badmouthing Trump and telling people to vote for Harris.

[legiteum]

I also enjoy participating in discussions on election related topics as I believe this will more or less impact the future of bitcoin. But I'm also starting to get tired of seeing legiteum's posts because he doesn't care about anything but badmouthing Trump and telling people to vote for Harris.

There are certainly far more posts here praising Trump, defending Trump, and advocating Trump for president, but as a Trump supporter you probably don't notice them.

This is by far the most divisive presidential election in US history. You would have to find a pretty closed-off forum to find the pro-Trump echo chamber you seem to be seeking. Insofar as people are allowed to state both sides of the argument, there's going to be a lot of arguing until election day...

[stompix]

Do you honestly think Satoshi would be pro-ETF?

Now I realize that you are right about one thing, Satoshi wouldn't like ETFs. I am confused. I personally think that massive Bitcoin adoption is destroying Bitcoin but at the same time it's what people want. My conclusion is that the Bitcoin community wanted Bitcoin ETF approvals, so if Gary goes against it, he isn't pro-bitcoin but on the other hand, like you said, Bitcoin ETFs aren't pro-bitcoin in reality because we have read whitepaper and know Satoshi's vision. So I'm really confused with what I wrote above but nothing makes Gary pro-bitcoin, he is an SEC chairman and that's what he cares about.

Prepare to be amazed again
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-s12-blockchain-and-money-fall-2018/

So this guy who people who praise shitcoins and meme coins and have never actually owned their coins at any moment was teaching about blockchain and decentralization 6 years ago at f**** MIT!!!! The so-called crypto lovers were pumping shitcoins on twitter meanwhile!
People here love to hate every official, hate the government hate everything, but the truth is Gensler is a true maxi, he hates everything that is a cheap copy of bitcoin, he has never criticized even while being the SEC Bitcoin as a coin or a crypto, he is pro regulating CEXs and shitcoins.

Now going back to Satoshi again, would Satoshid defend Coinbase against SEC? Do you think he would defend Ripple against the SEC? Look at what this forum has become, hating a guy who is against the exact same things Satoshi has been, in what world do you see Saotshi saying it's ok to have a company in charge of your coins and issuing unlimited coins? 

How many times has Gensler said that Bitcoin is not a security and the SEC has no business regulating it?
A hundred at least, last time yesterday how does this thing not make him pro bitcoin?
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/09/27/secs-gensler-wont-reveal-his-view-on-trumps-bitcoin-reserve-reiterates-bitcoin-isnt-a-security/