WHAT WE’RE READING: Business Insider
Business Insider released a report today discussing Bitcoin’s position in the context of the upcoming U.S. presidential election, which reflects the typical narrative of left-leaning mainstream media. The article points out that “Trump and Harris have varying motivations to appeal to the crypto community,” and while it’s true that winning this demographic would benefit both candidates, only one has actively engaged with it.
The report notes that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency aren’t on the radar of most voters, which I find to be accurate. I had the chance to attend the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this past summer, and even after Trump’s claims of supporting this sector, it wasn’t a topic of discussion. The same was true at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). Voters generally prioritize issues like illegal immigration, inflation, and crime over cryptocurrency. However, I believe this perspective is shifting in ways that may be underestimated.
Business Insider continues with the conventional media portrayal of blockchain enthusiasts as merely “crypto bros,” suggesting that the vote of a “dogecoin fan” in a swing state might be trivial in the election outcome. They further downplay Bitcoin ownership by humorously implying that someone with $50 in Bitcoin won’t influence their voting decisions. This overlooks two significant aspects that undermine their critiques.
Firstly, Bitcoin has successfully crossed into the realm of traditional finance, gaining support from major asset managers like BlackRock and Fidelity. BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, is not playing games like the so-called “crypto bros” suggested by Business Insider. Their spot Bitcoin ETFs are among the fastest growing in history, attracting a diverse range of investors keen to see this asset class thrive. These large asset managers are cultivating a substantial base of new Bitcoin holders who are likely to make their voices heard this November.
Additionally, earlier this year, CNBC reported that nearly half of Americans have $500 or less in their savings accounts, with 60% having the same in checking accounts. This indicates a savings crisis, as CNBC highlighted, with many Americans living paycheck to paycheck. Those starting with a small amount of Bitcoin are likely to vote for candidates who prioritize improving their financial circumstances. Thus, Bitcoin holders shouldn’t be dismissed based on their holdings when it comes to casting their votes.
So far, only Donald Trump has made tangible efforts to connect with this voter base. Former candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also pledged his support for Bitcoin but later switched his allegiance to Trump. Trump has gone to great lengths to garner backing from the Bitcoin and broader crypto sectors, including speaking at the Bitcoin conference in Nashville this summer, vowing to ensure miners have ample electricity, promising to establish a strategic stockpile of BTC for national reserves, and more.
In contrast, Kamala Harris has remained noticeably silent on Bitcoin, offering no support and skipping the same Bitcoin conference in Nashville. Unlike Republicans, the Democratic Party has not incorporated Bitcoin into its platform. Since assuming office with Joe Biden almost four years ago, Harris has consistently criticized the Bitcoin industry. While Business Insider notes her lack of comments on the subject, they frame it in a seemingly bipartisan context, suggesting she might support the industry like Trump.
This leads me to disagree with many opinions on this matter. I firmly believe that Bitcoin is indeed a partisan issue in this country. I follow all Senate and congressional hearings related to Bitcoin and consistently observe that most Republicans support it, while most Democrats oppose it. Democrats favor central bank digital currencies (CBDC), in contrast to Republicans’ opposition. This divide is further emphasized by Trump’s strong pro-Bitcoin stance compared to Kamala’s reluctance to engage with the industry.
If Kamala truly wanted to support Bitcoin, she would have demonstrated that by now. She has yet to publicly mention Bitcoin. Recently, she stated that she would advocate for “blockchain,” but given her previous opposition and the voting patterns of Democrats, it is reasonable to infer she means CBDCs instead of supporting Bitcoin. Over the past few months, hints have emerged from Harris’ campaign about potential support for the industry, but they have not translated into any concrete actions, resulting in more unfulfilled promises.
This leads me to believe that if she genuinely intended to support this sector, she would have done so by now—there are no valid excuses. Trump visited PubKey, a Bitcoin-themed bar in NYC, spending nearly $1,000 on burgers and drinks for patrons using the Bitcoin Lightning Network, just days after an assassination attempt. If Trump can take such actions, while Kamala has yet to even speak the word Bitcoin in public, the differences in their stances on the matter become clear.
After laying out Kamala’s deficiencies in supporting the Bitcoin industry, Business Insider concludes the article with, “What Harris or Trump will actually do on crypto is unclear, but that’s not really the point right now.” This is a blatant misrepresentation, given that Trump has proposed specific policies while Kamala has remained noncommittal. Instead of addressing Kamala’s shortcomings in appealing to this demographic, they pivot to downplay its significance. However, it is important. Reports indicate that over 50 million Americans own Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and they are spread throughout the nation, eager for their interests to be represented this November. While Bitcoin may not top the average American’s priorities, it holds significance for those engaged with this asset class. This growing voter bloc is passionately committed to their cause and will not waver.
Ultimately, only Trump has proactively engaged with and supported this industry, while Kamala appears disinterested.
