Millions of Americans self-custody their Bitcoin, and nobody is breaking any law by doing so
... so far. For if democrats were allowed to govern the US for another four years, I highly doubt they wouldn't attempt to step forward into more, similar dystopian proposals. (I don't believe republicans are way better in this regard, but I find it moronic to think of Biden as pro-Bitcoin, just because self-custody wasn't "banned" since he entered office.)
I never said he was "pro-Bitcoin" per se, only that it's completely ridiculous to characterize him as, "out to get Bitcoin". The adoption numbers alone make that statement look ridiculous.
And yes, the US government wants to stop terrorism, and the attacks on our private institutions (esp. hospitals) that make use of tools that allow them to be paid without being traced. While those laws haven't all passed, you can bet your last dollar that US citizens are sick of being robbed and terrorized by these people, so they will eventually make things like mixers illegal to use in the US.
But that's 0.01% of the market that even cares about that. Most people use a KYC'd exchange anyhow because they have nothing to hide from the government if they were to specifically target them.
Hence your characterization that "Biden was out to get Bitcoin" was misleading since 99.9% of Bitcoin users are not targets for any laws that are even proposed, let alone these laws you say "might get passed" in some version of the future.
If you are expecting some kind of miracle from Trump being elected, it's not going to happen.
I'm not expecting any miracles, and I don't rely on politicians. But, you've presented a viewpoint suggesting that Bitcoin's success is completely dependent on a political party.
I've said no such thing. In fact, in a new thread, I'm saying the exact opposite: that the markets have only priced Trump's victory at +7%--which you could argue could have happened if there was no election at all, and is what Bitcoin does all of the time.
IMO, you're being excessive, because you suggest that everything would be fine if President X were in office, just because Bitcoin ... wasn't made illegal for as long as his presidency ..., while President Y would lead to the complete collapse of the crypto space, because... he just wants to pump his coin...
I'm saying that Trump presents a drastically different risk to Bitcoin based on his track record of self-dealing, of lawlessness, and the fact that he is, unlike any other elected politician in the USA (or anywhere?) in the actual business himself personally. You are whistling past the graveyard if you don't think this is a significant new risk to Bitcoin.