Bitcoin may have emerged from Tuesday as the biggest winner of all.
While most American's were glued to the final poll results to see whether democrats or republicans would control the House and the Senate, there was another very important race going on...
Bitcoin's!
You see, there were a few very important victories on Tuesday that likely will spell very good news for bitcoin and crypto going forward.
The first one comes from Colorado.
In Colorado, progressive Democratic candidate Jared Polis defeated Republican Walker Stapleton by about 6 points in the governor race, replacing John Hickenlooper, who faced a term limit and couldn’t seek re-election.
Why does this matter?
Polis has long touted blockchain technology as a paramount part of his state's economic and voting future. In a campaign policy paper, Polis said he wanted to make Colorado the hub for all things crypto.
Specifically:
"My goal is to establish Colorado as a national hub for blockchain innovation in business and government. I believe strong leadership will put Colorado at the forefront of innovation in this sector—encouraging companies to flock to the state and establishing government applications that save taxpayers money and create value for Colorado residents."
(Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-may-be-an-unlikely-winner-in-midterm-elections-2018-11-07)
The national hub for all things crypto sounds pretty good to me!
The next victory comes from California...
In California, fellow crypto enthusiast, Gavin Newsom comfortably won over Republican John Cox.
If you have been around crypto for a while, the name Newsom likely sounds familiar.
Newsom plugged into the crypto community in 2014 when he began accepting donations in bitcoin.
In a May 20, 2014 tweet, the candidate said:
“Step right up?”
(To those willing to donate via a virtual currency)
At the time, a single bitcoin was worth less than $500, imagine if he had held on to them!
One small step for bitcoin, one giant leap for crypto!
When someone asks you who the bigger winner was on Tuesday night, make sure you tell them bitcoin was.
With even more bitcoin-pro political figures in power, the odds of bitcoin (or something like it) taking a foothold in the US only increases.
Stay informed my friends.
Image Source:
Follow me: @jrcornel
Is Bitcoin red or blue? 😂😂😂
I would have thought it was red originally, but it seems to have a lot of blue support???
I thought it was green, baby, yea!!!
Haha yes, green works for me!
exciting news. I love it that crypto is finally gaining a foothold. More and more every day.
It is certainly looking that way for sure.
IT'S A BRILLIANT NEWS. WE HOPE THIS, THE BITCOINS GROW MORE AND MORE. MY REGARDS @jrcornel
Really good article, Colorado looks like it may have potential, it's already one of the Cannabis capitals of the world an industry which also is exploring BlockChain technology.
Yes, it looks like they would like to be at the forefront of several industries.
They go together. Still hard to get banked if you are in the cannabis industry
This was really interesting, especially the info on Colorado. I had no idea and need to look this guy up now.
That would be pretty cool if the guy turned it into a major crypto hub.
Very good article for all crypto lovers. Well more people involve in the crypto field the Government will definitely make the dealings ease. all the very best to all crypto believers and lets not forget it is still early days for cryptos. So cheers for this excellent news.
Correct. The more people involved the better its staying power.
Great article, I would certainly vote for bitcoin rather than traditional money. A lot of people argue that you can't spend bitcoin however that is false because this year companies are starting to build technology to accept bitcoin while many people have no clue that you can now easily spend bitcoin. Can you also write about the Bitplaza app. It lets people spend bitcoin on physical goods.
I have never heard of it. Link me some info on it.
It's a step in the right direction, but I remain skeptical of the relationship between crypto and state actors. They are natural enemies because truly decentralized crypto is anathema to state control. Who runs for office in order to lose power? Such individuals have to have one of two things in mind. Either they are trying to protect their crypto investments, or they are really for centrally controlled blockchain. The latter is completely pointless because a permissioned blockchain is nothing more than an inefficient database. Beware of politicians of support "blockchain" for the purpose of advancing a state run cryptocurrency.
There is a 3rd option as well, one where they believe people should be in control of their money.
I am thinking there are thousands of explanations for their motivation. This false dichotomy (binary analysis) has infected every aspect of our public discourse. It is constantly presented as it is either "A" or "B." To think human motivation is so simplistic that it lends itself to an either or argument is ludicrous.
I've heard this one before. Lay out the other motivations then; don't just pretend that your thinking is superior to everyone else's, demonstrate it otherwise your superiority is useless to anyone else's benefit.
Better yet, how about I apologize for that last post. Rereading it, I think it comes off as kinda snarky. I am not like that. So, alternative motivations: He gets campaign contributions from Crypto HODLers and feels obligated to them, he is an idealist and sees this as the future, he is a patriot and sees this freeing his fellow citizens, he fears China's economic growth and sees this as a way to stop them manipulating fiat currency, he hates the FED and sees this as an opportunity to sideline them, etc, etc. My point being human motivation can be highly complex. The behavior may be binary (he did it, he did not do it) but the reasons behind said action do not lend themselves to the same binary analysis.
Yep, my thinking as well. Well said.
In other words, let's muddy up the waters so that the overall pattern that I was trying to highlight becomes less clear. So lets fix my post to say this instead...
"It's a step in the right direction, but I remain skeptical of the relationship between crypto and state actors. They are natural enemies because truly decentralized crypto is anathema to state control. Who runs for office in order to lose power? Such individuals probably have to have one of two main things in mind. Either they are trying to protect their crypto investments, or they are really for centrally controlled blockchain. The latter is completely pointless because a permissioned blockchain is nothing more than an inefficient database. Beware of politicians of support "blockchain" for the purpose of advancing a state run cryptocurrency."
You're pointing out the obvious and obscuring the important. Your alternatives really can fit under one of the two categories I stated. For instance, why would one hate the Fed? Is it primarily because they're worried about their investment, or because he's worried about his neighbors freedom (or maybe because their funding caused some wilted flowers in the Ukraine or a million other reasons)?
As for feeling obligated to constituents, I've rarely met a politician who took that seriously (and I've met a few). Many of them make jokes about how stupid we are for believing their BS when they think we're not looking. If you think Trump's "grabbing pussy" statement is unusual, trust me, it's not and it pales in comparison to some of the other things I've heard in the past half century or so. So let's focus on the reality of what's likely to happen. If you can assemble these other motivations in a symbolically useful way to point out what's likely to happen to crypto Hodlers in the 2020's, I'm all ears...