Over recent months, crypto has come to play an increasingly prominent role in US politics, culminating in the recent 2024 Bitcoin Conference in Nashville. The event featured speeches from various congressional representatives, no fewer than ten senators, and two presidential candidates – including former President Donald Trump, whose address headlined the conference.
Like many other high-profile newcomers to the cryptosphere, including Blackrock’s Larry Fink and AmEx’s Steven Squeri, Trump’s current pro-crypto stance marks a sharp departure from his previous position on the topic – he famously said he was “not a fan” of Bitcoin, stating that crypto was “responsible for illegal activity.”
It's uncertain whether Trump, or indeed the other names mentioned above, have thoroughly examined Bitcoin's technical aspects, monetary properties, or potential future role. What's clear, however, is that they all have strong incentives – either politically or financially – for supporting crypto. These incentives may not always align with the ideological grounds on which many enthusiasts support bitcoin or cryptocurrency – grounds which can vary, but include transparency, freedom, sound money, decentralized financial opportunities, and more.
A sizable 40 percent of U.S. adults currently have a crypto wallet, 63% of whom want to accumulate more crypto, according to a recent sentiment report from Security.org. This implies that there are a potentially significant number of votes to be won – or lost – based on the attitudes of a given candidate towards cryptocurrency. However, it’s not just votes on the table. The pro-crypto lobby has proven to be one of the wealthiest segments among political donors, creating even more of an incentive for candidates to put crypto on the ticket. Influential backers include the Winklevoss twins and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who have participated in donations that amount to over $75 million.
Who’s Promising What?
The allure of funding and votes means it’s perhaps unsurprising to see candidates on all sides of the political spectrum throwing their hat into the crypto ring. The Bitcoin conference provided plenty of insights into the pledges of several political players. The key takeaways from Trump’s speech include promises to fire current SEC chair Gary Gentler and appoint a new one – one that is bound to go down well with many of the industry executives that have found themselves in a courtroom defending the latest suit courtesy of Gensler and his team.
Read More: Web3’s Layer Cake – How Many Is Too Many?
He’s also promised to create US Government strategic national Bitcoin stockpile if elected, as well as create a crypto task force to come up with “common sense legislation” within the first 100 days and ruled out a US-dollar CBDC.
Although the odds of a presidential win currently seem far less likely, Robert F. Kennedy also used his Bitcoin Conference platform to pledge to create a US strategic BTC reserve, with a further commitment to purchase nearly 20% of available Bitcoin to maintain it. Eliminating tax on BTC transactions and classifying Bitcoin as property are among his other policy promises. Pro-crypto senator for Wyoming, Cynthia Lummis, also focused on the introduction of a Bitcoin strategic reserve, introducing a bill that will authorize the government to secure one million BTC.
Although she declined to attend the event, much to the chagrin of influential figures on Crypto Twitter, Kamala Harris seems reluctant to be left behind in the political play for crypto. Even though several high-profile Democrats, including famously anti-crypto senator Elizabeth Warren, have set their policy positions firmly against digital assets, Harris is reportedly meeting with industry advocates and Democratic donors, including Mark Cuban and Anthony Scaramucci, at an event where Democratic Senate leaders will also lay out their pitch to the crypto community.
Precisely due to the financial and electoral incentives on the table, it's wise to approach statements and promises from influential figures – particularly those competing for political power – with healthy skepticism. Campaign promises may bear no resemblance to the reality of government policy – or what can feasibly be passed through Congress. Maintaining an objective stance – as much as is possible during any highly polarized election – allows us to continually reassess how our own convictions might be shaped by those who have the power to control narratives – not just about Bitcoin, but on a wide range of potentially life-changing issues.
