Okay, Bloomer!

The piece, “Harris and Trump Shouldn’t Pander to the Crypto Crowd,” argues that our presidential candidates are too craven to the crypto industry and the many dollars it’s donating this cycle (Public Citizen, an campaign spending watchdog, reported this week that crypto companies were behind half of all corporate election spending this year). “The good news is that business interests are getting support during an election year. The bad news is that the business is crypto,” the op-ed begins.

Subsequently, it recalls the fact that Sam Bankman-Fried, known for the FTX controversy, used to generously donate funds with the aim of easing regulations. It implies that the crypto sector is currently following a similar pattern. It advises potential candidates to refrain from sacrificing sound judgment in pursuit of financial gains.

1. To start with, it’s pointless to challenge what seems logical or “common sense.” This idea dates back to 1776, when one of America’s most admired figures used it for a noble purpose.

So far, so good. But Bloomberg isn’t really arguing against lobbying and election spending. Its editorial begins with that line about it being good that business interests are supported. The trouble is in how Bloomer makes its case.

Let’s run through the rhetorical flourishes below:

While Bloomberg reports that the U.S. won’t outright ban Bitcoin (unlike some countries such as China or Chad), it doesn’t necessarily mean there are no concerns to be had. It’s fortunate that we can use a decentralized form of currency, one not under government control. Similarly, we should appreciate our freedoms in other areas like freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, and the press, as well as the ability to gather freely – aspects that many countries, such as China and Chad, do not allow.

Over approximately the past 15 years since Bitcoin’s creation, it has been demonstrated that most digital tokens have not provided much real-world utility.

As a seasoned investor with over two decades of experience in both traditional and digital markets, I’ve seen my fair share of financial innovations that have transformed the way people save, spend, and invest their hard-earned money. One such innovation is cryptocurrency, which has undeniably made many individuals wealthy and provided employment opportunities to countless others, including several journalists I know at Bloomberg.

Policy-makers shouldn’t advocate for individuals to store their savings primarily in digital wallets over traditional investments like stocks, bonds, or other assets that bolster the real economy.

As someone who has spent years navigating the complex world of finance, I can confidently say that politicians should not be treated as investment advisors. Their words and actions may influence market trends, but they don’t always align with an individual investor’s financial goals or risk tolerance.

I could go on, but the beach…

In conclusion, Bloomer suggests finding a balanced approach. The statement reads: “Candidates should pledge to collaborate with Congress and regulatory bodies to establish regulations for cryptocurrencies that align with current laws concerning fraud, money laundering, and sanctions.”

I concur with your statement. The issue lies in the fact that Congress and regulators have not been actively pushing for regulations on cryptocurrencies that align with existing laws concerning fraud, money laundering, and sanctions enforcement. This is the primary reason why the crypto industry is investing heavily during this period – they are eager to make progress and tired of waiting for action from these authorities.

Since Sam Bankman-Fried, or SBF, was identified as SBF, the spotlight has shifted towards preventing cryptocurrencies from causing harm. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been consistently enforcing actions against crypto businesses, and politicians and media figures have been vocal in their criticisms. However, there seems to be a lack of substantial action. The root issue lies in the fact that we are still unclear about what activities are legally permissible (and not) with digital assets. Regrettably, existing laws are insufficient as many were drafted before Joe Biden was born.

To summarize, we’re grateful to Bloomberg for awakening us from our summer lethargy and bringing focus to the potential risks associated with campaign financing. However, it’s unfortunate that this editorial seems to overlook or misrepresent certain facts and the truth.

As a researcher contributing to this platform, it’s crucial to clarify that the opinions I express here are my own personal perspectives and may not align perfectly with those held by CoinDesk, Inc., its proprietors, or their associates.