Nostr Web Client

Interesting analysis. Two shitcoiner shenanigans in particular:

1. Attack ads against candidates that don't mention crypto at all (and obfuscating the crypto connection by how they named the PACs). This wasn't some broader cultural push either, they would support radically opposed candidates.

2. Mostly supporting candidates that were likely to win anyway

Molly assesses that this was done to impress / intimidate politicians to pay attention to their demands moving forward, even if it's against the interests of their constituents.

A big goal of the industry is to get rid of SEC enforcement against them. Regardless of your opinion about the SEC, I think it's fair to say they're mostly a problem for "crypto", not for Bitcoin. The ETFs are there, that's pretty much all the Bitcoin subset of the crypto industry needs, afaik.

A more relevant goal of the lobby is to deal with unbanking of the industry. But Molly is worried that they want to go beyond that and make the government bail them out next time things implode. Which is also something I expect to happen. Though there's no concrete evidence for this yet.

https://youtu.be/06DGU_o8h5A

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

HoloKat 1y ago

Scams trying to legitimize themselves with scammed money. Color me surprised.

Brad Mills 1y ago

💯

DireMunchkin 1y ago

I wholeheartedly support this - Politicians have repeatedly interfered with Bitcoin in the last few years. Organizing to make life difficult for them in turn is what a healthy democracy looks like.

W.r.t Gensler only being a problem for "crypto" - Sorry you're completely wrong about this. First of all SEC fought Bitcoin ETF:s every step of the way - Along that time they repeatedly described Bitcoin as a scam only used for criminals. Gensler is not a Bitcoiner, he's a nocoiner. If it was up to him we'd have no ETF:s and no options trading on these ETF:s. They only approved ETF:s because they lost a court case against Grayscale. Could we fight a hostile SEC for everything? Sure, maybe. But I'd rather get the SEC out of the way altogether if I can.

I would also say that regardless of your opinion on "crypto", Bitcoin and crypto are regulated together in practice. And I would much rather have pro-crypto politicians than anti-crypto ones. Molly White has the opposite preference - She's a self described "crypto critic", I.E a rapid nocoiner and statist. She's much more of an enemy of Bitcoin than anybody working at Coinbase is.

Sjors Provoost 1y ago

> They only approved ETF:s because they lost a court case against Grayscale.

So that problem was out of the way long before the election.

> Could we fight a hostile SEC for everything?

What else are you worried about? The SEC blocking a Kraken IPO? Some legal minutia that makes life the for the ETF's 1% more difficult?

If I had a few hundred million to mess with politics, I'd focus it on destroying the FATF and most of AML law. I doubt these PACs give a fuck about that. That's why I don't think they're allies.

Sjors Provoost 1y ago

> Politicians have repeatedly interfered with Bitcoin in the last few years

True, but as the video points out they didn't go after Warren. This campaign wasn't about dealing with crypto-hostile politicians, it was much sleazier than that.

DireMunchkin 1y ago

Even going forward there were great concerns around de-banking / Operation Chokepoint 2.0 that have now resolved by getting a friendlier regulator in place.

I view the current bull market we're in as mainly the market reacting to getting a friendly administration in place, as opposed to speculating about a strategic reserve or anything.

Now you can buy Bitcoin as I.E a pension fund without worrying if you'll get sued by the SEC and have your bank account closed. This was a justified concern in the last admin.

I have little respect for shitcoiners, but in some circumstances we have common causes with them. Access to the financial system is one such cause.