Quote from: d5000 on Today at 01:40:40 AM

Quote from: coolcoinz on September 13, 2024, 06:50:27 PM

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.