The Crypto 4 Trump Thing Is Not About Bitcoin

Yes, I know, you're here to let the hate flow. You've bought all the rhetoric. Donald Trump likes crypto. He is embracing DeFi.

This article argues that people who are voting for Donald Trump because they believe he will be good for crypto are mistaken. The author claims that the initiative known as Crypto 4 Trump is actually an alliance of large U.S.-based mining firms and exchanges that have banded together to spend heavily in an effort to put an end to the mistreatment that they have been subjected to. They are weary of being brought to court, harassed, and essentially driven out of the United States. And they certainly have cause to feel this way.

However, the Bitcoin industry is not the same as the crypto sector. This was the same line of reasoning that was used to justify the Fork Wars, and to summarize, let's just say that it did not end well at all. If miners in the United States are forced to relocate, mining will continue in other parts of the world, and decentralizing the hashrate, as we observed with China's mining ban, is ultimately beneficial for Bitcoin™.

ASIC manufacturing may remain consolidated in a small number of international companies, that much is true. It's possible that rebuilding will take even longer. But other nations will capitalize on the opportunity, and the Bitcoin network will continue to function normally. Bitcoin might be our best chance at toppling all of the current superpowers and giving the developing world more authority. If it entails leaving the United States behind, then so be it.

Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: a Kamala presidency will result in increased enforcement of U.S. securities laws, not a vote that will allow millions of alts to flourish. A victory for Trump almost certainly ensures only one possible outcome for our industry: the SEC will be defanged, which will put “coins other than Bitcoin” on a “level playing field.”

On the other hand, if the SEC continues to enforce its securities laws on the crypto industry, it will rightfully highlight the distinction between Bitcoin, which was distributed through proof-of-work (the only known method of avoiding securities sales), and the many centralized variants.

To put it another way, “crypto assets” are the ones that need a regulatory framework in order to survive, not Bitcoin, which is already decentralized enough. Forcing the builders in the crypto industry to follow these laws will undoubtedly benefit developers who are trying to expand these capabilities to Bitcoin, the only major cryptocurrency with a clear regulatory framework. Are we really going to argue that encouraging millions of developers to put their technology on Bitcoin (rather than Ethereum or Solana) would be a bad thing?

If there is a single coherent thread running through Bitcoin maximalism, it is the assertion that everything outside of Bitcoin is either 1) a scam or 2) can be built on top of Bitcoin's blockchain. A continued crackdown on crypto will drive the market to investigate the second point more thoroughly. It would also drive up the price of MicroStrategy stock (MSTR), as it would remain one of the few widely accessible plays to get legitimate beta on Bitcoin.

Sure, the taxes on your Bitcoin profits may go up, and spending may continue to be penalized. But anon, I thought you were supposed to be HODLing anyway

So, remind me, of all the supposedly pro-Bitcoin policies of a Trump presidency, what is it that you expect to get, other than state-sanctioned degeneracy and block propagation in the heartland? If you're a single-issue Bitcoin voter, shouldn't that mean voting for an option that makes Bitcoin more decentralized and less reliant on U.S. government policy? Allow me to reintroduce you to Madame President Harris, a bullish choice for Bitcoin.