⭐ Merited by d5000 (1)
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
Actually i find it weird how many people are hoping and praying that governments and leaders are doing the right things for it. It's like we are dependable on the government intervention, just to push the price to moon, and hell with the original idea of it.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
That why so many people don't seem to care much we are now waiting price to be controlled by government blessing for it or banning it. I don't really have a solution or any scenario where it wouldn't be and i accept this development, knowing full well that that means i don't in my core really believe in decentralization, but i thought that more people would be worried about this.
Bitcoin should be not depending on any of that as the very reason it exists is because it was supposed to be resilient against government intervention. And now we are counting on presidents to pump the price? What happened? Why people suddenly want to be dependable of such actions? Only thing i can see that we are being just greedy over the use cases it was originally designed for.