Politicians don't represent cryptocurrencies. It's just a currency or an asset that people invest in. The corruption charge against a crypto-friendly politician wouldn't tarnish the reputation of Bitcoin. A politician's bad reputation will not tarnish the image of Bitcoin.
If politicians truly had no impact on Bitcoin, then why did BTC rally ahead of Trump’s election? Or crash after China banned crypto? Even South Korea, at one point, accounted for 25% of global BTC spot trading — until their president cracked down on ICOs and forced users to link accounts with local banks. That political decision tanked local activity fast.
And let’s talk about reputational influence. El Salvador’s Bitcoin rollout flopped largely because the Bukele brothers overpromised “free BTC” and people lost trust. Same goes for Trump’s and Milei’s memecoins — the hype died fast once political baggage caught up with them.
If crypto becomes too entangled with controversial political figures, it could easily backfire. For example, crypto laws in the U.S. could collapse due to Trump’s family being too deep in the space. And if the Democrats win power? You can bet they'll see crypto as a juicy new tax base to patch up the U.S. debt hole.
Maybe I didn't present my thoughts appropriately. Let me correct myself by saying politicians don't represent Bitcoin. Politicians like Trump and his wife Melinda could represent a shitcoin but Bitcoin is decentralized. I don't care which politician is Bitcoin friendly or not, the truth is that they don't represent or stand for the currency. Their bad deeds will not tarnish the image of Bitcoin. But this doesn't mean that political actions and inactions will not affect the price and use. The government can influence the price and use through economic and political policies but it is independent of their control.