How to lose all the crypto voters in a single move 101.
You know it's Clown World at its finest when the smartest and most decentralized option is to allow banks to custody crypto... and then the acting administration vetoes the ability to make that happen. You know what would be way better than all that? Is if Coinbase just continued the stack up the biggest honeypot in the history of ever. Yes, let's pursue that obviously terrible option. What could possibly go wrong?
Cute
Republican-led resolution
This issue has absolutely nothing to do with left vs right politics but of course make sure to call it "Republican-led" so that automatically all the brainless followers will support the current thing and oppose whatever those "dirty Republicans" are up to. Nice work.
Appropriate guardrails that protect consumers and investors are necessary to harness the potential benefits and opportunities of crypto-asset innovation.
Wow what word-salad full of nonsense-talk.
This is just a flat out lie. We know this because they've had plenty of time to regulate the industry, and simply refuse to do it; instead opting to just make up the rules as they go and sue indiscriminately all the most trusted names in the space who are doing everything in their power to comply.
My Administration is eager to work with the Congress to ensure a comprehensive and balanced regulatory framework...
Hm how about I stop you right there and just call you a liar.
Because that's what you are.
Therefore, I am vetoing this resolution.
Leader of the free world can barely string a full sentence together and I'm supposed to believe he had anything to do with any of this decision? Again, very cute story. Tell it walking, please.
None of this is surprising.
It's not even disappointing honestly. All of this was perfectly expected. In fact many have already pointed out that there is a very real financial incentive for institutions like Blackrock and Fidelity to burn the bridge behind them and make sure that others aren't allowed to cross it. Imagine every retail bank having the ability to custody Bitcoin and allowing their clients to buy Bitcoin directly from them and hold it within their account. A lot of value would bleed from the ETFs into the retail banking sector and hurt the profit margins of the ETF (assuming the price of Bitcoin doesn't moon in which case everyone wins).
So what's up with this law anyway?
SAB 121 is a SEC rule that prevents the banks from holding crypto as collateral. This law simply sought to repeal that nonsense. There's been an attack on retail banking for a while now. It wasn't that long ago that the DTCC clearing house declared that Bitcoin derivatives like ETFs have a 0% collateral value within the financial system.
They really seem opposed to giving the banks the opportunity capitalize on this magic asset class. On the other side of the coin it makes sense because crypto is insanely volatile and banks have proven themselves to be not that great at hedging against that type of risk. Too much dependence on crypto within legacy finance would inevitably lead to the mother of all financial collapses because everything is built on a vaporous house of cards.
That being said I do 100% believe that crypto will be the reason a lot of these banks are able to stay afloat. This is pretty ironic in retrospect when we used to all believe that crypto would be the death of the banks. Now it's much more clear that crypto as pristine collateral is exactly what the debt-market needs to stop itself from imploding from a cascade of bad-debt defaults. The future is weird like that. Sometimes disruption and adoption are the exact same thing.
Conclusion
The Biden administration is completely cooked. They will not win reelection. This was clear to me within 6 months of them being in power. They can't even win if they cheat at this point. That's how bad of a job they've done. It's impressive really. Not to imply that someone else is going to do any better. It's all political theater for the rabble.
I will say that it's interesting that crypto seems to actually matter now when it comes to the political arena. Imagine what it will be like when these market caps are x10 or even x100 higher than they are today. At a certain point opposing crypto is going to equate to full-on luddite political suicide. We've come a long way since our humble grassroots beginnings. For better or worse.
I just don't see this moving the needle with mainstream voters at all. There's so much for US voters to think about that this will truly get lost in the mix. Sorry man, I just don't think normies will care about this in the slightest.
Well at this point it's quite undeniable that crypto is at least somewhat on the radar of these politicians. Even if it's just Elizabeth Warren being paid to oppose it at every turn no matter what. Or Trump saying he's going to pardon Ross. Or whoever saying they support Bitcoin.
I also didn't make the claim that an issue like this could actually sway an election (yet). People care about issues when those issue affect them, because people are selfish and predictable. By definition the closer we get to mainstream adoption the more these issues will matter to voters.
Sorry when you said this:
I thought you were saying it was because of this specific issue.
I agree that people will care more once it affects them directly, but I think we're a few years/decades away from that so yeah, I think it's a non-issue for November.
I do think you're wrong... mainly because the GOP are such a mess I legitimately think they'll barely exist in 2025. I actually hope that might be a good thing in the long run, let's get multiple parties in and destroy the 2 party system.
It certainly would be nice to have more parties assuming they all had an actual chance of winning.
As far as Biden admin being cooked I've been saying that since 2021.
I've been saying this for quite some time now.
We are in a very weird volatile period where it feels like the incumbent's advantage is now a disadvantage.
I predict more violent fishtailing.
I definitely agree that the incumbents advantage is now a disadvantage... people desperately want change.
Honestly, I think if Biden was going up against literally anyone else, he'd have absolutely no chance. I legitimately think Haley could have beaten him... but I'm like 90% certain that the GOP will lose so much across the board that we'll see Dems in full control in 2025. The GOP has been captured by religious extremists and, ah, normies aren't into that.
I'm glad we're on the same page about the incumbent thing nobody seems to take it seriously.
Oh, 100%. If there's one thing that everyone in America can agree on is that we all want big change... and that is the one thing that neither political party has any interest in offering.
Ironically, El Salvador shows the change people want is to reliable, stable governance, which is best availed despotically, not democratically.
It is notable that Trump and RFK have both been lifelong Democrats. In practice this US Presidential election is a Democratic primary, not a multiple party election at all.
I disagree. A stable government where critics disappear is not what people want. People want an effective government, and I personally think the best way to achieve that is through a multiple party system where compromise is the key to progress and obstructionalists get voted out for being ineffective.
Trump and RFK may have voted Democrat in the past, but the policies they propose now are not in line with the current Democrat party. RFK exists solely to siphon votes away from Biden and Trump has corrupted the GOP so that it no longer stands for mainstream conservative values.
It will move dial. Because for a thousands, yes not millions. But thousands it is the only issues. Many of those vote third party or don’t vote. The election will be ultra close in multiple states. 10K votes in Arizona and 7K in Michigan can be the factor that decides it.
I absolutely agree that the margins are super slim between the two parties and hundreds or thousands of voters could decide the difference in key battleground regions... I'm just not sure there are enough swing-voters left in battleground states to make a difference anymore. My hunch is that at this point, it's all about which side can motivate their base to get to the polling booths, and I'm not sure this particular issue is more motivating than other, more clear issues... but I guess we'll see... it's really hard to get clear data on what specifically motivates voters.
I see it discussed as a major issue often.
Sure, in your circles it might be discussed often. I'm saying that for vast majority of voters in the US, this issue is not at all as important as many of the issues on the table for the US Presidential election. I'd guess that the vast majority of voters in the US don't even realize this veto is even happening.
Or maybe it’s more common and just not in your circles 🤷🏼♂️
I see it evetywhere. Thousands of libertarians who never voted Republican or democrat past decade now voting Trump over this. All over podcasts and YouTube you can find. Huge movement
Thousands of people spread across the USA?
154.6 million people voted in the US Presidential Election in 2020. I could very well be wrong, but I'm not convinced this particular issue will move the needle at all.
The last election was lost by 9K in one state, 15K in one state and 6K in one state. That is approximately 30K vote difference. Tens of thousands of libertarians in a few states easily can effect outcome.and now with Florida and Texas having more delegates since 2020 census . Trump can win with only having two of the swing states he lost. It’s very easy for libertarians to effect this
Sure... but do the libertarians who care enough about this to vote have the numbers in those particular battleground states? Can they also outnumber the new people in Florida and Texas who are upset about Abortion Rights or any number of other issues?
I don't think it's numerically impossible for libertarians to rise up and vote for Trump on this one particular issue, but I think it's extremely unlikely, especially since Trump favors an expansion of government, a reduction in rights and was boo'd so dramatically at the Libertarian convention.
For richer and for poorer. Oops! I almost typed porn. I've my popcorn. Do you have yours??
I disagree. In fact, I don't think they actually need to resort to the election show anymore at all. US government has crossed the Rubicon to the point that it can simply openly impose despotism without intolerable consequence.
Thanks!
Yeah and the exact way to accomplish that is to continue on with the illusion that the system is working as intended. They don't care who wins nor do they need to care. A 'fair' election between two jackasses is the best way to accomplish that.
History reveals that elections are uncommon. Although Rome started as a republic with a form of democracy, it didn't end that way, and there's a coincidental frequency of allusions to crossing the Rubicon lately. It's hard to justify plebs voting if the consequences are the government we're getting.
No one rules where none obey.™
I don't think there are any examples of 'none obeying' in modern history. Maybe Gothic or Scythian tribes. Can you think of one?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-n30-the-seattle-wto-protests
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-the-irrepressible-anarchists
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-let-me-light-my-cigarette-on-your-burning-blockade
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/cian-warfield-understanding-zapatista-autonomy
There are lots of instances, just none of them get any corporate press for the obvious copycat reasons.
Those, my friend, are some not obeying, not none obeying. Even I can sometimes be a bit churlish, from time to time. Mostly, despite not wearing my seatbelt almost ever, I stay in my lane, do the speed limit, and signal before I turn. It's not even some urge to be obedient, but rather to not kill innocent passersby (which me not wearing a seatbelt does not endanger).
After some reflection on the matter, I bet the Scythians and Goths were very obedient to their warlords. They were effective warfighters, and would have had to closely coordinate their actions in military conquests, which would require obeying warlords.
I appreciate the links.
War requires hierarchy.
https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/
I doubt none obeying is an option.
Too many sheep and lemmings.
When the sheep and lemmings have all been herded into the chute of the abbatoir, at least everyone else can choose freedom. I reckon that's why we're here.
i sure hope you are right on "the grassroots beginnings".
i can still see all these shenanigans and the overapparent official hostility towards crypto as the usual way to normalize a new situation and prepare the controlled opposition that way.
if CBDCs fail because crypto 'finally comes out victorious', it does beg the question whether that was the plan from the beginning. i am still 50-50 on it but i still get the sense we are being played...
i hope i am wrong.
Being worried about CBDC is like being worried that the government will suddenly become a sleek and efficient competitor that actually has something to offer. I don't worry about that scenario, I welcome it... while also betting against it.
CBDC is enterprise blockchain which is intranet. All three are complete failures for the exact same reason (a complete lack of connectivity and incentive to build on them). The only difference being that everyone seems to believe that the government can just force everyone to use their bad product no matter how terrible/confusing it is while also banning every other alternative (including their own currency/derivatives and the entire retail banking sector). Is there an example of this ever happening in all of history? It seems like the answer should be yes but also somehow isn't.
The creation of the Fed, in 1913. The shitty system of 'borrowing' fiat from private banks that conjure it out of thin air is blatantly fraudulent, yet it was imposed against the will of hard money advocates. It's actually what 'The Wizard of Oz' was about, the Yellow Brick Road refers to the gold standard. The imposition of fractional reserve banking itself shows that government isn't even the ultimate power imposing such things, but was itself a product of the real power: moneylending.
I'm not the sort of person to let a single issue determine how I vote but this is a pretty big deal for me. I don't like either of our choices quite honestly and I have pretty much determined neither of them will get my vote. Even if that means I am basically handing the election to he who shall not be named.
Damn it's frustrating to see the Biden administration veto a resolution that could have allowed banks to custody crypto. To me this decision feels like a step backward in embracing innovation. The future of crypto in politics is definitely something I would like to see how it unfolds man.
It would have turned the financial world upside down for those in power. Which it would have began a power shift.
You're absolutely right on that good friend
It's weird to watch the current state of things. Peaceful times have made weak minds the most loud.
I appreciate your thoughts as well bud.
Thanks for appreciating my thoughts... You bring up such solid points to friend
Enjoy the remainder of your Saturday... Is it Saturday?
Yes dear friend it's Saturday night for me
They choose to be willfully ignorant I believe. It doesn't allow the same legacy financial institutions to hold all financial power, which in turn is ultimate power. The only way to control crypto is to control information. The people that are smart enough to control information don't want to work for the government.
This is all my opinion though.
I slightly disagree... I don't think they are willfully ignorant... I personally think the majority of people in the US Senate can't understand because they are north of 80 years old. It's literally too hard for them to comprehend at this point.
The median age is quite high. They definitely have an entire different motive, as well as a total disconnect from reality.
President Blinken will never get re-elected with such out of touch policies! Don't get me started on his approach to the Middle East, or West Asia as the Kids like to call it.
Sad. I was almost convinced that the Biden administration was about to make a 180 degree turn in support of cryptocurrency as an importnat part of the effort to win this election.
I was wrong.
Perhaps they don't want to win.
Perhaps they have made enough money and they are ready to ride off into the sunset.
Sigh.
Trump's conversion to a pro-Crypto candidate is not because he loves Satoshi but because the Crypto voting block is substantial and many would otherwise vote democrat.
💯🌻❤️