Let's talk about crypto in this year's presidential race.
It is amazing to see how Kamala Harris and Donald Trump go about this highly debated issue.
First, let's take Harris's statement in support of "innovative technologies like AI and digital assets" while working to "protect consumers and investors."
Classic politician speak, vague enough not to offend any sensibilities yet ultimately not substantive. Her campaign obviously is walking a line to appeal to crypto-enthusiasts without turning off the skeptical ones.
I get it.
Crypto's still pretty controversial, and in the wake of FTX and other high-profile implosions, the topic's pretty much a minefield for politicians. But this is well beyond platitudes now, this is literally an industry crying out for clear guidance and regulation, and Harris's team appears more than happy to keep things very high-level and noncommittal.
On the other hand, we have Trump all in on crypto.
As I have been saying in all my blogs, that's quite a contrast from his more skeptical outlooks of times past, and I have to wonder how much of this is principled belief and how much simple political opportunism.
His pledge to make the U.S. the "world capital for crypto" sounds great on paper, but the devil's in the details. Just how he plans to do that and still appease very valid consumer-protection and financial-stability concerns is less apparent.
Now the reason why I keep mentioning this is because this happens to be Trump's last chance at being president. So he wouldn't need to fulfill all his promises for another campaign run.
Also, the involvement of the Trump family with World Liberty Financial in the DeFi space is again another wrinkle to all this.
Great to see high-profile figures get into crypto, but it always means a degree of concern around conflict of interest when politicians and their families have direct interests in the very industry they regulate.
That, to me, is where the balance of the scales between innovation and safeguards is found.
Of course, the crypto industry does have huge potential to turn the financial technology world upside down, but for that, it does need an adequate regulatory framework in which to develop and eventually be more widely accepted.
I have been in so many discussions with fellow crypto enthusiasts, and they all seem to have this concern: concrete clarity, not some overused lip service.
We want leaders who understand the technology and not those using a buzzword to keep with campaign season.
Of course, it is good that both campaigns are engaging with industry insiders like Ripple and Coinbase. I just am concerned that none of this stuff is turning into substantive policy proposals. We're stuck in limbo where politicians say crypto's important but aren't willing to take a position.
And with this election coming up, I want to hear more about crypto policies.
How are we going to deal with the SEC's increasingly aggressive position toward the industry? What about the role of stablecoins in our financial system? How are we going to ensure the U.S. remains competitive on blockchain technology and whatever comes next without blowing out our security and consumer protections?
These are, in fact, very complex issues that really do require thoughtful discussion, as opposed to campaign-trail slogans.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
My point exactly. Currently, we just have those who want to take advantage of the crypto community.