Politicians enthusiasts of cryptocurrencies: you trust?

[marrcelo]

Has increased the number of politicians that appear speaking well of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Some even buy, post prints and declare themselves in favor of the financial freedom. The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

[Rashlyowl]

Personally, I have never trusted those politicians. They came & expressed support for BTC, even though they remained on BTC side until the end, I view their actions as not being entirely genuine, it was a way for them to garner sympathy from the broader crypto industry. Much like the state & the government that merely ride the coattails of this industry, they appear supportive, but in reality, they simply want to reap the benefits from us all, the proof is that they do not like the mixing service.

[coinrifft]

Has increased the number of politicians that appear speaking well of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Some even buy, post prints and declare themselves in favor of the financial freedom. The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

Well trust is subjective, and with that, they could be that they are in crypto because they wanted to make a lot of money out of it, just like the majority of us. The thing is that they can hide their true intentions by saying this and that.

But I wouldn't go and believed everything they say. Or are they really here because they want it to be adopted. So just be careful with those politicians who might be hiding that guise. As again, as you have said, it could be part of their plan to get some votes from pro-crypto individuals.

[Zoomic]

I'll not be conclusive to say all politicians who say they support Bitcoin and even went as far as publicizing their holdings to back their claims are deceitful and never does it from a place of total conviction.

However, I think politicians stance on Bitcoin adoption shouldn't be judged by what they say and what they publicize before elections but their actions after being elected.

Some politicians campaign on financial freedom but later supports policies that make it unnecessarily difficult for people to use or hold Bitcoin and you begin to question their earlier pro-bitcoin promises.

Trusting a politician should not be based on what they say before elections but the policies they support after being elected. 

[m2017]

Has increased the number of politicians that appear speaking well of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

Because this industry is rapidly developing and expanding. It would be foolish for politicians not to use this to their own advantage - drawing the attention of potential followers who might vote for them in the future (and, overall, in terms of public support).

Some even buy, post prints and declare themselves in favor of the financial freedom.

Can put on a show of anything. But what lies deep within them? I mean, are they truly committed to bitcoin, or is it just for show? In reality, those who are genuinely committed don't shout about it in public; they quietly pursue their ideas.

The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

I have doubts about the altruism of such intentions. After all, politicians have a very compelling motive, as you said, to secure the support of the electorate.

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

Well, let’s first try to recall a single instance where a politician actually kept their word. That right there is the answer to your question. Their words should always be met with skepticism, because they say only what the electorate wants to hear. These guys pursue their own selfish interests and do not act for the good of others.

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

There is a 99.9% chance they will disappoint you. At least, that’s how it is in my country.

Folk wisdom: listen to a politician, and do the exact opposite.

[Y3shot]

It is possible that politicians have their personal interests in why they promote Bitcoin, maybe to gain support from the crypto community. These can be reasons why some politicians talk about Bitcoin. But the fact that institutions are adopting Bitcoin suggests that there are some genuine government officials who are seriously investing in Bitcoin. However, I don't really know the reason for announcing it because Bitcoin investment is supposed to be private, and there is no need to impress people with it.

[OcTradism]

Has increased the number of politicians that appear speaking well of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Some even buy, post prints and declare themselves in favor of the financial freedom. The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

Politicians are not trusted in anything, not only with their enthusiasm on cryptocurrency and any others. They basically are always ready to make many promises but they mostly never act to complete and achieve what they promised during political propaganda.

You can think about them like between promises to citizens, their supporters and their political career, they will certainly prioritize their political career. Not all their promises are achievable by political and constitutional barriers but you know their priorities are never turning their promises to actions and achievements at all cost.

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

Easy. If you don't trust them, never fully trust them, you will not feel disappointed with them.

[Gozie51]

The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

Don't bother your head on what they say especially doing the time of election.

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

Remember politicians are human beings with their own personal plans in life. They protect the image of the country's policy in the public but it doesn't mean they also do same in their own personal life

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

Just follow the policies not to go against the country's laws.

As for politicians, they have their own personal agenda. They invest even in areas they preach against, drugs inclusive.

The internet never forgets. In 2021, a minister was seen with crypto investment.



https://www.ripplesnigeria.com/nigerias-agf-malami-caught-trading-cryptocurrency-despite-cbns-criminalisation-of-virtual-currencies65/

[Merit.s]

If a politician tells me Good morning, I hsve to check my time if it's really morning because they say things to just please you at that moment in order to get what they want from you which is your support and when they are elected into power, they do the opposite.

I cannot tell if they really love bitcoin and bought it or came to support it publicly because of their personal interest or not but with the way these government are going against privacy, it seems that they into bitcoin to kill the privacy we get in using it by making us use it in a centralized way and the government might take down all services offering privacy like mixers and decentralized exchanges in the future.

[moneystery]

There's a saying "it's easier to believe what a snake says than what a politician says." The reality is, politicians don't work if it doesn't benefit them. They say things because it benefits them; otherwise, I don't think they'd support Bitcoin.
So, when a politician suddenly seems to support Bitcoin, I don't think they're truly supporting it for the sake of 'financial freedom' or whatever it offers. Rather, they're supporting it to gain support from crypto holders.

[iBaba]

Has increased the number of politicians that appear speaking well of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Some even buy, post prints and declare themselves in favor of the financial freedom. The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

The more important thing here is to watch what Dey would do when they have the opportunity to support or oppose crypto related policies. They can say all the right things during campaign and behave differently when they are in office so I would not judge politician position on owning some bitcoin or posting about it online, they have a reason to pay attention because there is already a lot of political money around crypto.

Personally the consistency matters most to me, when they keep supporting clear policies even when bitcoin is unpopular that tells me more than just screenshot of their portfolio.

[aoluain]

I don't know any politician in my country who actually speaks positively of Bitcoin.

The general consensus is that politicians are not to be trusted. If they speak positively about a
subject we should take it with a pinch of salt so to speak and if it transpires that they follow
through on what they talk of well that can be see as a bonus.

In my country the politicians are only one cog in a very big wheel, often times it can be extremely
difficult to bring about change and at the best sometimes it can be extremely slow.

[Darker45]

I don't trust a politician. While a few of the things they say or do may be true, it's hard to tell which ones are those.

Regardless, however, whether what they're saying in favor of Bitcoin is mere pretense or not, it gives an advantage to Bitcoin. A politician publicly making pro-Bitcoin pronouncements, despite not truly liking or supporting it, is more or less bound to conform with it, lest it would only cause a backlash.

In the end, all this doesn't truly matter. Bitcoin doesn't need politicians.

[Popkon6]

Not all politicians are the same, in this case I do not trust the government people in this current position. They may say such things before the election to create love among the people, the people of the nation vote for him, this strategy is used. However, in most cases, politicians may use this strategy of Bitcoin to keep their money private, but in most cases, politicians accept the advantages of Bitcoin a little more.
But people no longer believe in all these strategies of politicians, people now believe in Bitcoin investment, they themselves are able to know all kinds of information about Bitcoin investment. Especially I do not believe anything these politicians say because they can use any strategy at any time to meet their own interests and get the opinion of the people.

[Donneski]

There's a saying "it's easier to believe what a snake says than what a politician says." The reality is, politicians don't work if it doesn't benefit them. They say things because it benefits them; otherwise, I don't think they'd support Bitcoin.
So, when a politician suddenly seems to support Bitcoin, I don't think they're truly supporting it for the sake of 'financial freedom' or whatever it offers. Rather, they're supporting it to gain support from crypto holders.

Are you trying to say none of the politicians who's publicly thrown their support for cryptocurrency did that out of their conviction and genuine decision to become pro-crypto for the rest of their life? I know that majority of them try to seek public support by engaging in things they know are of huge interest to the public just to gain popularity and to be accepted but there are few who after getting elected will still not change their stance in supporting cryptocurrency.

[ObeyKnock]

Not all their promises are achievable by political and constitutional barriers but you know their priorities are never turning their promises to actions and achievements at all cost.

Of course, trying to divine the actual sincerity of various politicians’ enthusiasm for Bitcoin is difficult. But there’s a simpler explanation of why they’re so chatty about crypto.

Under the STOCK Act, which has included crypto since 2018, members of Congress are required to disclose any transaction of more than $1,000 within 45 days. While the STOCK Act is woefully underenforced and comes with toothless fines, it can be incredibly useful for those who want to know whether a member of Congress is holding BTC when they make bullish statements about BTC. For instance, the FBI Director’s belated disclosure that he purchased MicroStrategy shares in November took months to trickle out. A sitting House Democrat took over a year to disclose a MicroStrategy purchase, until it was recently made public. You may be interested to find out whether any other members of Congress own MicroStrategy shares, or any other crypto-related stocks. The trail of STOCK Act disclosures makes this easy to do.

[bangjoe]

Has increased the number of politicians that appear speaking well of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Some even buy, post prints and declare themselves in favor of the financial freedom. The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

First I hope you changed the title of the thread about Crypto on the Bitcoin discussion board, which is generally understood differently from the point of view of people on the forum, even though you only included Bitcoin in your description, but I think it's just you as an example as the appeal of this discussion.

Both politicians rely on Bitcoin and its derivatives as a tool for their popularity in this modern era, to be honest it is a very reasonable way because he has an interest in increasing his electability amid the massive adoption of this industry that is the hope of many people as one of the more advanced digitization follow-ups.

To believe it or not, this has to be seen from what he does and what he talks about, the context will be different when someone is just an expert in a certain industry, so I think you need to judge objectively to sort this out.

For me politicians who are elected and have spoken about Bitcoin, there is little hope that they can keep their promises, because it is clear that they are a good lip service at campaign events, we must know that the character of each politician is almost the same, but even though we must continue to encourage hope for blockchain or bitcoin adoption to remain a leadership concern, why is that? because basically we can't do anything.

Someone who once promised us just released his family's Memecoin and took advantage of us.

[atookz]

I don't believe it can be said that it's "trust them all" or "distrust them all" but it depends on the circumstances.

The ones who are usually just posturing are politicians who talk positively during campaign season and then drop the topic once elected, post 'proof of holding' without ever backing a concrete policy, or suddenly endorse a specific token or project. Once they start promoting a specific coin, that's the biggest red flag.

Some of the more reliable ones typically have a history that stretches back to before the crypto hype, actively advocate for specific legislation or policies rather than vague concepts, disclose their asset holdings and understand the fundamentals of the technology without relying on trite terms such as “blockchain” or “financial freedom”

At the end of the day, politicians are still politicians, their main incentive is re-election, not pure ideology. Instead of believing what they say, it's best to check their voting record and who they are getting money from for their campaign. Sizable exchanges or crypto VCs behind them? Obviously there's an interest

Breaking free from centralized, single-party control is the essence of crypto, and it's a little ironic that we are getting legitimacy from politicians. DYOR still applies here, and even more so for the politicians themselves.

[Oshosondy]

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

One thing that I have noticed about politicians when they get to power, most of them will fulfill their promises, but better standards of living and good economy is bigger than their promises.

An example is a politician that promised what you said, he made his stake or country crypto friendly, but at the end the standard of living in the country is not good.

The worst is that most time, people do not know who will be the right candidate. Even there may not be the right candidate among the people that are contesting.

Promising to allow bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies does not mean the economy or standard of living will be good, there are other things that should be considered to make that possible.

Also promising crypto to be allowed does not mean people will like other things that he will do.

[athanred]

Politicians enthusiasts of cryptocurrencies: you trust?

No. Don't trust, verify. It is a different story, if a politician is simply declaring to support Bitcoin, and a completely different thing, if it is confirmed by officially submitted documents, that he has for example 33.7 BTC. It is a different thing, if you say "I have some BTCs", and a different thing, if you fill some papers, and give your political opponents hard evidence they can use against you in the future, if you are lying.

The doubt is, is this real conviction or only a way of promote themselves and gain support of part of the electorate?

Of course, they do that, to increase their chances of being elected. Nothing less, nothing more.

Is worth trust in politician that says himself adept of the cryptocurrencies or is better distrust?

It depends on the whole picture. It is just one of many factors, why you may want to support someone, but if there are some other red flags, then simply don't vote, or choose someone else.

In the end, will they do what they always do and end up disappointing?

Of course. For example: someone may be pro-Bitcoin, and introduce stricter KYC, to have more control over people, and what they do with their money. Because as usual, every technology can be always abused. And Bitcoin is no exception.