We weren't talking about the election here--that's over, and there's no point. We're talking about lobbying the US government, now controlled by Trump, to buy lots of Bitcoin so the price goes up.
Yes, but you're treating me as if I am the one who lobbied the government, while it is the administration that saw the potential to having reserves in bitcoin.No, there is a single US congressman with a proposed bill right now, and a lot of people on the Internet saying they want this. You are one of those people, I'll presume.
Quote
Quote
Lots of products are doing just fine without government help.
There we go, again. Bitcoin is a "product". Do you also call gold a "product"?Yes, gold is a product. It's a thing that some people have and most don't, it's a thing that can be bought and sold, etc.
On that very note, politically speaking, you would have a much easier time convincing Congress that the government should just buy up a bunch more gold so people who invest in gold will make more money. I mean, if you are going to give money away to people, you are better off giving it away to more people rather than fewer...
Quote
Quote
Wrong. It was brokers like Coinbase who profit from selling things to Bitcoin holders, and... mostly profit from currencies other than Bitcoin e.g. memecoins and other financial products.
I'm missing the point here. Why am I naive for Coinbase spending millions for campaign contributions?You'd be naive if you think all of these millions spent this election were spent to make Bitcoin more valuable, and thus to help you.
Indeed, insofar as companies like Coinbase are starting to make most of their money on non-Bitcoin currencies, all of these millions pumped into the election are probably going to make Bitcoin go down, not up: Coinbase et. al. are busy making thousands of competitors of Bitcoin for the average investor.
Put it this way: all of these millions are really really good for Haypenny
.