Why the US Democratic Party ‘Embracing an Anti-Crypto Agenda Is a Bad Political Move’, Explains Coin Metrics Co-Founder

by

As a seasoned crypto investor with a keen interest in the industry’s regulatory landscape, I share Nic Carter’s concerns regarding the Democratic Party’s increasingly hostile stance towards cryptocurrencies. Carter’s insightful analysis highlights how this approach could alienate a significant portion of the electorate without achieving any substantial policy objectives.

As a cryptocurrency analyst, I’ve closely followed the evolving perspectives of key industry players, and Nic Carter, Co-Founder of Messari, is one such influential voice. Recently, on platform X (previously known as Twitter), Carter voiced his worries about the Democratic Party’s growing antagonism towards cryptocurrencies. In a detailed post, he argued that the Democrats’ stance on crypto regulation might backfire politically. By potentially driving away a sizable segment of voters without achieving tangible policy advancements, this approach could prove detrimental to the party.

Carter highlighted that Democratic initiatives aiming for rigorous cryptocurrency regulations might not align perfectly with their overall policy intentions. He brought up the recent rescission of SAB121 guidance as an example, suggesting that this decision could have synergized with Democrats’ objectives by enabling large banks to hold cryptocurrencies, thereby improving regulatory supervision and fortifying financial stability. Moreover, Carter emphasized the advantages of stablecoins, which are linked to the U.S. dollar, in bolstering the dollar’s position, assisting Treasury bond purchasers, and simplifying debt management procedures.

According to Carter, there’s a considerable amount of enthusiasm and financial involvement among the American public in cryptocurrencies. A report by Paradigm revealed that approximately 19% of American voters have invested in some type of cryptocurrency, with an almost equal distribution between Democrats and Republicans. Carter emphasized that this issue holds significant weight for many of these voters. Furthermore, he pointed out that prominent Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has expressed her intention to form an “anti-crypto army,” may unintentionally alarm a vast demographic by seemingly threatening their financial assets—a stance that might not sit well with this group.

Carter pointed out that there are few vocal opponents to cryptocurrencies among the general population, indicating that the Democratic Party may not gain much backing by taking a firm stance against digital currencies. On the other hand, he suggested that political action committees (PACs) focused on crypto could sway crucial elections in certain states, possibly influencing important appointments such as the selection of the next Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman. Using Ohio’s Senate race between crypto-critic Sherrod Brown and crypto-supporter Bernie Moreno as an illustration, Carter emphasized that crypto PACs could significantly impact the outcome of such contests.

Citing recent primary outcomes, like Katie Porter’s loss to Adam Schiff, Carter argued that the cryptocurrency sector is gaining more clout in politics. He suggested that Democrats could unwittingly make crypto-related donations a significant aspect of their campaign financing by framing regulation as a crucial issue.

In Carter’s perspective, the Democratic Party’s opposition to cryptocurrencies is primarily driven by its more progressive members, including Senator Elizabeth Warren. He argues that key figures like SEC Chair Gary Gensler and FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg, who are associated with Warren, are advocating for excessive regulatory measures on crypto that don’t align with the general public’s favorable opinion of these digital currencies.

As a researcher studying the political landscape surrounding cryptocurrencies, I’ve come to believe that progressive voices may be underestimating the extent of public support for this emerging technology. My analysis suggests that they might hold off on changing their stance until encountering substantial opposition from moderate Democrats. In essence, the Democrats have inadvertently transformed cryptocurrency into a divisive campaign topic, providing an effortless point of contention for their political opponents.

Last week at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, during an event for Trump NFT (Non-Fungible Token) holders, Donald Trump, the previous U.S. president and 2024 presidential contender, voiced his backing for cryptocurrencies. He raised concerns over the exodus of digital asset companies from the United States, attributing it to an unfriendly regulatory climate. Trump emphasized the importance of a more welcoming stance, remarking, “If we’re going to adopt this technology, we need to allow it in our country.”

i asked donald trump how he’s going to keep crypto businesses in america.

sounds bullish 🇺🇸

— Malcolm (33.3%) (@macdegods) May 9, 2024

During the event, Trump interacted with a well-versed crypto community, implying his receptiveness to accepting Bitcoin and related digital currencies as campaign donations. He also voiced his criticism towards President Joe Biden and SEC Chair Gary Gensler, labeling them uneducated and hostile towards the cryptocurrency industry.

BREAKING: DONALD TRUMP IS FINE WITH CRYPTO

— Frank (33.3%) (@frankdegods) May 9, 2024

Read More

2024-05-13 17:25