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

My personal preference is to have somebody who doesn't platform pump.fun token funsters and just rather holds, in privacy even if they desire, and defends the well-worn pathways that protect Bitcoin in its most important ways and properties. One can dream, right?

The Trump path is one more politicians around the world are exploring: if our country's financial markets make this one more plaything, and 0.1% of the geeks spend like 88% of their mental mindshare getting a routing node to work, that's a fair trade. The distinctive word for me is his regard for "crypto" rather than Bitcoin. I'm not going to say it's disfavorable to watch him shift from anti-Bitcoin to pro-crypto, but I don't think it's as good of a marker as some might think.

I do believe Trump's actions are actually more significant in weirder ways outside of this though in the "private" ways I marked - for example, if he keeps on appointing more anti-Chevron Doctrine judges. But I'm not sure if that's because he believes in those principles to protect against the overarching reach of executive agencies, or because he pushes his own accomplishments (getting as many judges as possible to the bench) with the actual details beneath him. Likely the latter, as his public statements seem to advocate for relatively expansive executive powers (though of course, he's known for his fights with the alphabet agencies).

In short, I'd prefer to hear a politician say:

"I hold Bitcoin, but I lost it in a boating accident."

I would prefer they govern in a way that fits that philosophy.