Politics & Crypto: Choke Point 2.0 is hurting Kamala Harris

[TomPluz]

Kamala Harris has given cryptocurrency fans little to be hopeful about — despite some of the milquetoast rhetoric from her supporters.

The Federal Reserve’s enforcement action against a crypto-friendly bank shows that Operation Choke Point policies may still be on the table. The enforcement action also undermines the idea that Harris would bring a change of pace for U.S. cryptocurrency policy should she win the presidential election.

Dan Spuller, the Blockchain Association’s head of industry affairs, was quick to point out that the Federal Reserve’s enforcement actions appear to be only the latest of Choke Point 2.0 policies under the Biden administration.

Harris has given fans of cryptocurrency nothing to be hopeful about. She has yet to address the issue once on the campaign trail — leaving the public with little more than the past few years to judge.

Get more details of this piece here.

As one of the many people who don't believe that under Harris/Walz we can see a better treatment of the cryptocurrency industry, I am watching both sides of the political sphere to determine who got a better stance on our industry and who has the track record either as an enemy or a friend. Harris/Walz tandem can be full of good rhetoric too just like the other side but she lacks more focus on policies that may work and in fact she is avoiding many interviews as she can not articulate that much on what she would be doing once in office and even in the last debate there are many things not so clear. So if Harris is really serious to get the votes of those in the cryptocurrency space, she should send the message clear once and for all especially on the question if she is approving the many things happening right under the Biden administration where she is very much a part of.

[yhiaali3]

Perhaps she is deliberately not being clear in order to win both sides on her side, considering that the cryptocurrency community in the United States is still relatively small and does not have the power and influence of the other side that is biased towards central banks.

On the other hand, Trump may be exaggerating in his statements and election promises about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. He was clear in his statements, but should we believe all his promises? We can only judge conclusively after he wins the elections, and then we will see whether he will fulfill his promises or forget them.

[NotATether]

Perhaps she is deliberately not being clear in order to win both sides on her side, considering that the cryptocurrency community in the United States is still relatively small and does not have the power and influence of the other side that is biased towards central banks.

What?

The USA is big enough to make the crypto industry scared whenever it advises people not to use no-KYC exchanges to the point where they self-censor themselves.

On the other hand, Trump may be exaggerating in his statements and election promises about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. He was clear in his statements, but should we believe all his promises? We can only judge conclusively after he wins the elections, and then we will see whether he will fulfill his promises or forget them.

Trump has a long, long history of forgetting all of his promises, most of the time it is not even before he's not willing to fulfill his promise, but because he only remembers the last thing that people tell him in a meeting.

He is getting old, has dementia, and needs a teleprompter to read a speech properly. He should not burden himself with the presidency, he should retire and enjoy life with his family.

[yhiaali3]

What?

The USA is big enough to make the crypto industry scared whenever it advises people not to use no-KYC exchanges to the point where they self-censor themselves.

Yes, that's true, but I mean the crypto community within the US itself is considered small and has less influence compared to the other side, I mean how many believe or work in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies compared to those who still prefer the central banking system?

From what I think I heard, the crypto community is about 50 million out of a total US population of 330 million.

[NotATether]

From what I think I heard, the crypto community is about 50 million out of a total US population of 330 million.

Since we're talking about normal american people involved in crypto, I guess we can say that most of the time one wants to have a reasonable discussion about cryptocurrency with a fellow american (especially with the 'intellectual' types), the responses that they will be getting about it is that it's a waste of time, it is useless, it is a pollutant, etc.

To see it in real time, just open any Hacker News topic about bitcoin.

So the people as a whole may not care enough about crypto to make the US government make some policies about it for their own people, but the govt is looking outwards at what criminals are doing with it to make those policies anyway.

[ZAINmalik75]

So if Harris is really serious to get the votes of those in the cryptocurrency space, she should send the message clear once and for all especially on the question if she is approving the many things happening right under the Biden administration where she is very much a part of.

On the basis of part of the Biden administration we are doubting Kamala Harris she is obliged to the Biden administration till the voting and once she gets elected as President then she might change the rules of chokepoint 2.0 if they are not contract based.

Choke Point 2.0 is only stopping cryptocurrency integration with the traditional banking system because they want to keep the risky and dangerous business, which is highly volatile, away from the traditional people's money because if such banks will be accepting crypto, then people who hate cryptocurrency won't be using those banks.

[Lucius]

~snip~
From what I think I heard, the crypto community is about 50 million out of a total US population of 330 million.

Somehow, I doubt that even 50 million US residents own cryptocurrencies, but even if that is true, how many of them actually own Bitcoin, and how many of them are "gambling" with various altcoins? I personally think that this figure is overblown for the reason that everything has to be big in the US, so why not the number of users of cryptocurrencies - and someone is obviously using these numbers very well to create FOMO "Hey, 50 million have already invested, what are you waiting for?"

[yhiaali3]

Somehow, I doubt that even 50 million US residents own cryptocurrencies, but even if that is true, how many of them actually own Bitcoin, and how many of them are "gambling" with various altcoins? I personally think that this figure is overblown for the reason that everything has to be big in the US, so why not the number of users of cryptocurrencies - and someone is obviously using these numbers very well to create FOMO "Hey, 50 million have already invested, what are you waiting for?"

Yes, your words make sense, the numbers that I read about the crypto community in the United States do not talk about those who own Bitcoin specifically, but about everyone who owns any altcoin or maybe even those who bought shares of ETF companies, all of these will be counted, although this is wrong because the owners of shares are not considered part of the crypto community.

It is difficult to determine the size of the crypto community in any country because most of them prefer to maintain privacy and use VPN or even fake KYC, some of them also open multiple accounts on multiple exchanges, so all the numbers and statistics about the crypto community are inaccurate.

[bitterguy28]

but she lacks more focus on policies that may work and in fact she is avoiding many interviews as she can not articulate that much on what she would be doing once in office and even in the last debate there are many things not so clear.

i don’t think she is in support for crypto but i don’t think she is outwardly anti crypto, i just don’t think she supports it as much as trump shows he is

she knows that she should be careful in what to say because if she so as much says something not in favor of bitcoin, all bitcoiners would run flocking to trump (not like they haven’t yet) and she most likely does not want to say something that might backfire if she promises support to crypto and she wins and doesn’t implement what she said in the election campaign many would be furious

she’s playing the safe side basically these politicians doesn’t seem to have an opinion of their own or even if they do have their own opinion, they are willing to hide it to gain voters

[Kemarit]

Perhaps she is deliberately not being clear in order to win both sides on her side, considering that the cryptocurrency community in the United States is still relatively small and does not have the power and influence of the other side that is biased towards central banks.

That is a bad move in my opinion, if she doesn't want to be clear. However, his political party has been anti-crypto though, so that is enough so say that maybe he will be obviously on the same boat as Biden before him if she ever won the election.

On the other hand, Trump may be exaggerating in his statements and election promises about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. He was clear in his statements, but should we believe all his promises? We can only judge conclusively after he wins the elections, and then we will see whether he will fulfill his promises or forget them.

That's his game plan, to put crypto into his mouth and become his battle cry as he wants to attract pro crypto voters. No, he is a politician, and we shouldn't believed everything he says. He has been in the office before and he didn't do anything to move crypto where it is right now. It is still us who pushes the price and not the government.

[MrSpasybo]

i don’t think she is in support for crypto but i don’t think she is outwardly anti crypto, i just don’t think she supports it as much as trump shows he is

she knows that she should be careful in what to say because if she so as much says something not in favor of bitcoin, all bitcoiners would run flocking to trump (not like they haven’t yet) and she most likely does not want to say something that might backfire if she promises support to crypto and she wins and doesn’t implement what she said in the election campaign many would be furious

she’s playing the safe side basically these politicians doesn’t seem to have an opinion of their own or even if they do have their own opinion, they are willing to hide it to gain voters

Yeah, Harris hasn't expressed much of a stance on crypto so far, and we can't confirm whether she's pro-crypto or not. Usually presidents have an advisory board, Biden does too, but it seems his advisory board isn't quick enough to understand the value of crypto to the US economy and politics.

It's clear that Trump is more friendly and pro-crypto than Harris, that's why I support Trump and hope that Trump will win and have the opportunity to implement his bold plans to make the US a crypto hub. Trump's win could be a victory for crypto companies in the US and the global crypto community!

[Lucius]

Somehow, I doubt that even 50 million US residents own cryptocurrencies, but even if that is true, how many of them actually own Bitcoin, and how many of them are "gambling" with various altcoins? I personally think that this figure is overblown for the reason that everything has to be big in the US, so why not the number of users of cryptocurrencies - and someone is obviously using these numbers very well to create FOMO "Hey, 50 million have already invested, what are you waiting for?"

Yes, your words make sense, the numbers that I read about the crypto community in the United States do not talk about those who own Bitcoin specifically, but about everyone who owns any altcoin or maybe even those who bought shares of ETF companies, all of these will be counted, although this is wrong because the owners of shares are not considered part of the crypto community.
~snip~

What I know is that before the methodology of such research was that a company would conduct a survey on 1000 or 2000 people, asking them if they owned cryptocurrencies, and if 10% gave a positive answer, then they would conclude that they could map that percentage to the national level. Of course, they all talk about a statistical error that is between 2-3% and that is not too questionable, but if you do such a survey on people who work in IT sectors, large technology companies and the like, then you are targeting people who are much closer to such investments than someone who works in a fish processing factory or is an ordinary farmer.

To be honest, they don't do it only in the US, we have "crazy" data on the number of crypto users from various parts of the world, especially India or some African countries, which when studied in a little more detail do not make any sense.

+1

[yhiaali3]

To be honest, they don't do it only in the US, we have "crazy" data on the number of crypto users from various parts of the world, especially India or some African countries, which when studied in a little more detail do not make any sense.

I also expect that this data is random, inaccurate and meaningless because it is not based on real accurate statistics, as I mentioned to you earlier, most cryptocurrency holders prefer privacy, especially in countries with anti-cryptocurrency laws.

An important point to consider is that most exchange users who live in banned countries create accounts using fake documents and most of them prefer to use US citizenship because they believe that they will get more benefits. Therefore, the numbers and data in the exchanges are inaccurate.