The bitcoin and cryptocurrency chatter in the political sphere just keeps ramping up. Personally, I see this as a good thing, a sign of things growing more and more normalized and mainstream. It also shows that bitcoin is no longer able to be avoided by those who, until recently, have loved merely snuffing it away as a tulip fad.

Namely, banks, Wall Street, and politicians are taking note and waking up. This is partly due to the fact that the financiers see money to be made. For instance, the turnaround on the Ethereum ETF was astounding. I'm not sure that anyone who is not on Wall Street or "inside the beltway" (i.e., Washington political insiders) knows exactly why the mood on the ETH ETF suddenly changed from, "No way, ain't happening," to, "Yes, it's happening, and it'll be approved by the end of the week." And it did.

The second reason I think the powers-that-be are waking up to bitcoin and crypto is that we the people are demanding they do so. It's becoming unavoidable to not pay attention. Intellectual property and innovation are being drained away from the U.S. (see meme below). People are taking notice and people are blaming politicians for this lack of legal clarity, protection, or outright aggression toward this intellectual property and innovation. Angry people means angry voters, and that gets the attention of vote-lusting politicians.

The well-worn "quote" of

means we're squarely in stage 3. Wall Street seems to be warming up to bitcoin most quickly, probably because they see money to be made (witness the bitcoin ETFs and the miraculous turnaround on the ETH ETFs). Banks seem to publicly still be anti-bitcoin (they scared), though they're working the other side of the coin as well (witness Jamie Dimon's public comments and JPMorgan's involvement in the ETFs). And as far as politicians, well, we all know of Senator Elizabeth Warren and her "anti-crypto army." Phase 3. Personally, I think her stance is little more than a stunt pandering to her base, a freakshow with the aim of keeping her name in the news. The "bitcoin is a scam" line is an easy to digest clickbait trope that gets one's name in the headlines. And, that's it. The tripe about protecting the helpless, or those at the bottom of the income ladder, or whomever, is merely verbal cover for the pandering. If politicians really wanted to help the poor, they'd truly commit to an army battling inflation...the devilish thief that steals away everyone's earnings, especially those at the bottom of the income ladder. If they wanted to truly help those "living paycheck to paycheck," politicians would attack inflation with sound money policies instead of enacting policies that exacerbate and accelerate it, and thus hurt the poor more than anyone.

A third reason I think things are changing is that a growing number of these folks are waking up to the fact that they're realizing that bitcoin is unstoppable. Wholly frustrating to them, they're realizing it is beyond the control of their power-hungry souls. There is no off switch, Dave Ramsey, and Satoshi can't come back and erase it, Jamie Dimon.

https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/crrdlx/EpvjSHBENTZ8952TVb7AZHETYLQj5K8SkiThXyUWYCRwxPQ5JPaZhepAzPrKcVqWkQp.png Source: https://wtop.com/inauguration/2021/01/inside-joe-bidens-newly-decorated-oval-office/

So, when the bitcoin and crypto talk recently began to turn in the political sphere, this is a good thing right? We've all seen articles such as this one about Trump pandering to bitcoin and crypto voters. Trump seems to have warmed to bitcoin and crypto considerably since his presidency days. At least he says so.

Most of the things I've seen online have been akin to, "This is great! Bitcoin voters might decide the election and then we'll have a pro-bitcoin, pro-crypto presidency!"

I've been a bit surprised though at the push-back that has been "out there." More than a couple of people, some prominent people, have responded such as, "Don't believe any of it. Politicians will say anything to get votes. If he was pro-bitcoin, he would've done it when he was president." One person wrote something like, "Don't even participate in their voting. If you vote, you're just playing into their hands, a pawn they're moving around." We plebeians definitely don't hold the power, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

A few things here: first, words like Trump's are politics. The default for all is to not believe. Secondly, I think this skeptical view is healthy. Frankly, it's the bitcoin way: don't trust, verify. Third, we've all been burnt many times over by politicians' words and their following actions. I think of going to the movies. In cinema there is the concept of the "voluntary suspension of disbelief"...the "contract" when stepping into the theater that says, "If you agree to entertain me, then I agree to forget that there's no possibility of a 100 foot tall gorilla climbing the Empire State Building and swatting helicopters." To a degree, we kind of expect this type of thing politically...we understand that politicians say anything, but also don't exactly expect them to follow through completely as stated.

I suppose my ultimate question is, "What would you prefer to hear a politician saying regarding bitcoin and crypto?"

There's no question in my mind that the ultimate response by governments is going to be, "Bitcoin has a place, we just need to make sure everything is on the up-and-up." Effectively, that's what Trump said in the sentence:

I totally get that there are nuances here. The "good and solid and everything else" implies regulation in some form. That, of course, is a spectrum of control from almost none to total CBDC surveillance money. Personally, I wish it would be regulated no more than anything else. In other words, regulated very little, but prosecute the criminals. Scammers and thieves using bitcoin and crypto should be punished for fraud and larceny, but don't punish the vehicle they use to commit the fraud or larceny. It doesn't matter if they did a phone scam or crypto scam, the crime is the fraud and larceny, not the tool, the telephone or computer. It's the same as murder by gunshot or murder by hammer, we prosecute murder regardless of the weapon. (And we don't ban hammers when a hammer murder occurs.)

Yes, Trump's earlier words were not pro-bitcoin. But, can't people change? Isn't "orange-pilling" and "going down the rabbit hole" a process? And, again, if not these words, what would you prefer that a politician say?

We bitcoiners hate to trust anything, but in the case of politicians' words during an election and their actions in office, there's no other way other than trust-and-then-see. And yes, ultimately, it is actions that matter, not words. The choice then is a candidate who openly says he's against bitcoin and crypto and favors regulation or a candidate who says he's "okay with" it.