Author | Mu Mu
Produced by｜Baihua Blockchain
Recently, US Vice President and next presidential candidate Harris officially stated that she will support digital assets. As another major competitor of Trump, another highly supported presidential candidate, her attitude towards crypto assets is obviously very important. Although a number of crypto KOLs have expressed the positive effects of Harris's move, it is too early to say that Bitcoin and crypto assets will have a smooth road ahead. So how does the current mainstream society view Bitcoin and other crypto assets?
01. What does the next US president think?
The "finals" of the US presidential election are imminent. If nothing unexpected happens, one of Trump and Harris will become the next US president in a few months. Before Harris once remained silent on crypto assets, Trump made no secret of his support for crypto assets.
As mentioned in the previous article "How credible is Trump's Bitcoin Conference Promise?", Trump and Harris represent the very different political views of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party respectively. The Republican Party tends to support and participate in technological innovation and market freedom, while the Democratic Party's propositions, including environmental impact and sustainability, financial inequality and social justice, and stronger supervision, reflect its values of weakening individual freedom and power and emphasizing public and collective interests. The environmental impact of Bitcoin mining in the past and the seemingly unequal wealth acquisition of a large number of individuals have made the Democratic Party full of prejudice against crypto assets.
However, being a Democrat does not mean always leaning to the left, and the ultimate goal of the two parties is the same. Harris has expressed her support for crypto assets in public more than once in recent days. In a speech at the Pittsburgh Economic Club on Wednesday, Harris said that under her leadership, the United States will "recommit" to maintaining global leadership in key areas that "shape the next 100 years": "maintaining dominance in artificial intelligence and quantum computing, blockchain and other emerging technologies."
Previously, some analysts believed that Trump's coming to power was good for Bitcoin and the crypto market, while Harris might be the opposite. Now some analysts have expressed different views. VanEck analysts said that Harris' presidency might be more beneficial to Bitcoin because it would "accelerate many of the structural issues that drive Bitcoin adoption."
At this point, Harris's promise and statement mean that whoever comes to power as the next US president will be more friendly than the current Biden administration (which is relatively less friendly), at least on the surface.
02. What do regulators think?
As we all know, the US regulatory agencies under Biden's leadership have brought many troubles and challenges to the crypto market, especially the US SEC, which is always "finding faults" and filing lawsuits at every turn, and its anti-crypto chairman Gary Gensler (pictured below), who constantly releases unfriendly remarks and warnings.
Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an announcement on Monday stating that investors should understand that Bitcoin and Ethereum are highly speculative investments due to their high volatility. The U.S. SEC warned that spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETPs are subject to risks such as price volatility and possible fraud in unregulated markets. The securities watchdog emphasized that "spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETPs are not registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940." Therefore, they lack the asset custody and valuation protections applicable to ETFs and mutual funds.
In general, regulators remain vigilant. Perhaps it is their duty, or perhaps it is because of Gary's anti-crypto plot and prejudice that the next leadership team has called for him to be replaced. It would be better to replace him with someone else. However, the SEC will still be vigilant about the volatile crypto market and warn investors to pay attention to risks. After all, in essence, these decentralized assets are always a force that they cannot control. Even if crypto assets contribute to innovation and technology, they will not be at ease with the conflicts behind them.
03. What do institutions think?
Institutional funds usually vote with their feet, and the inflow of funds into Bitcoin ETFs can show how institutions view it. Recently, Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas posted on the X platform that the capital flow of US Bitcoin ETFs has reached US$17.8 billion since the beginning of the year, setting a new high. The goal of owning 1 million Bitcoins has been achieved by 92%, and the holdings of Bitcoin ETFs are close to the holdings of Satoshi Nakamoto. Data shows that Satoshi Nakamoto holds 1.1 million BTC, and the holdings of Bitcoin ETFs exceed 916,000.
At present, most of the world's largest fund management companies have already started crypto asset businesses. The Bitcoin ETF launched by BlackRock has even exceeded the holdings of Grayscale Fund, becoming one of the institutions with the largest Bitcoin holdings. A research report we translated previously, "BlackRock: Bitcoin is no longer a simple risk asset," elaborated in detail on the unique status of Bitcoin as a major crypto asset and explained the unique value and significance of Bitcoin on a global scale.
Unlike the SEC, which believes that Bitcoin is a risky asset, institutions have gradually improved their understanding of crypto assets in recent years. In the eyes of institutions, crypto assets such as Bitcoin have gradually transitioned from pure risk assets to an alternative asset that plays a safe-haven role in special circumstances. They have special significance and role, and can hedge some fiscal, monetary and geopolitical risks that other assets in the investment portfolio may face.
04. What do the general public think?
Since the general public does not have the professionalism of institutions, their attitudes towards crypto assets are still uneven, which is related to the degree of friendliness of crypto assets in different countries and regions.
Image source: B2Broker
Qatar, Egypt, Bangladesh, Morocco and other countries and regions that explicitly prohibit or do not support the circulation of crypto assets are crypto-unfriendly regions, and their attitude is self-evident. In crypto-friendly countries such as Malta, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Portugal, and Switzerland, clear regulations and regulatory frameworks are usually provided, and funds are established to invest, support and promote the establishment and development of innovative crypto companies. Through these top-down support innovations, ordinary people are generally more aware of crypto assets.
Due to the limited public awareness, comments on crypto assets on social networks in some crypto-unfriendly countries and regions are mostly negative. The situation is just the opposite in friendly countries and regions. Even in the relatively neutral United States, we currently see that the group of crypto asset enthusiasts is not small, and has become one of the important targets for the presidential election.
05. Summary
As Uniswap founder Hayden Adams commented on Harris’ crypto overtures, this is a positive sign. Biden has treated the cryptocurrency and tech industry badly over the past four years, and Harris is hinting that her administration will handle it differently in the future and be more supportive of innovation.
In the future, I believe that no matter who comes to power, the crypto industry will receive more friendly support than it does now. Under the leadership of new crypto-friendly leaders, supervision will be more open and inclusive, and institutions will be more courageous to actively participate in investment and construction. Ordinary people will also further deepen their understanding of crypto assets that have entered the mainstream.
