Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if a Democrat with dyed hair wrote this article, lol. If Biden came out in support of bitcoin, you know the writer would jump on that bandwagon too.
Anyway, this article is filled with a lot of negativity towards bitcoin and the whole crypto scene. If you’re in the mood to get upset, just read it. I’ll share the full piece since the site wants you to pay to view it.
Crypto is Useless. Not Even the White House Can Change That.
Bitcoin, which is the biggest cryptocurrency out there, has lost nearly half its value since it peaked last fall. The global crypto market has seen almost $2 trillion in wealth vanish since October. So, what took so long for this to happen? Aside from the scams and crime, the technology really isn’t that useful and the economics are even worse.
Turns out, crypto was propped up for months by the hype that came from the Trump administration’s support. Those crypto enthusiasts who spent big bucks to get Trump in office got nearly everything they wanted: a long-time investor as an adviser, one crypto type getting a nod from the government, minimal regulatory oversight, and invites to Trump’s fancy dinners.
But instead of making crypto legit, the administration just highlighted how worthless these assets really are. Now that investors are getting nervous about risky assets, Bitcoin's value is just tanking.
The article is written with propaganda in mind. Since you mentioned a political party, obviously, whichever ideal the opposing party is, they will create a counterargument about such an idea. Now that Trump is supporting Bitcoin, the opposition will tarnish whatever Trump is supporting, and right now, the best way to attack is Bitcoin, since we have seen how much the market has suffered.
Although it is funny to think about how the author's idea had risen, it sounds like a person ranting about something that they had no real idea what the subject is. Bitcoin had never relied on any government to rise, nor depended on any government to get fixed. The Bitcoin market is a self-reliant market where it naturally fixes any abnormal things that happen caused by outside influence and has its own pattern and path to do things.
The crypto get tangled with the government because the government wanted to get entangled with cryptocurrency. Even without the government, crypto, specifically Bitcoin, is doing fine.
Back in 2024 I questioned the wisdom of the crypto universe bolting itself on to one side of US polarized politics, and this is yet another example.
Now Bitcoin will go up and down based on Trump's approval ratings, and if US voters turn on Trump and his party (which would happen if the economy here went bad, or if he gets us into a war with Iran that spikes gas prices, or any number of other things) then Bitcoin's price will plummet and all of the political favors the industry bought in 2024 will be reversed.
Can somebody explain to me why it was wise to ensure that Bitcoin will only ever be looked upon favorably by a maximum of 50% of the US population? (And even less of the rest of the world's population who have even dimmer views of Trump).
This is a classic case of, "live by the sword, die by the sword"...
Such ridiculous thing uttered by someone who don't know the true meaning of freedom. Obviously giant tech firm aren't using it because they want control and bitcoin is decentralized and irreversible. No room for giant tech firm to control.
On top of that, security comes with cost. Calling blockchain slow and expensive is wild because even any database out there that is significantly less secure than bitcoin will become expensive once you need to scale to cater to millions of users.
It's about crypto is useless, not Bitcoin. The title and the content quite contradicting and confusing with each other but even it only aims at Bitcoin, it's a meaningless article too.
If Bitcoin is useless, it would have not gotten very high value, adoption, and price like it has gotten in 2026.
If Bitcoin is useless, people don't use this blockchain for transactions, and don't use bitcoins to store their wealth.
Many other IFs that are all big IFs and none of them can say Bitcoin is useless.
Another wrong thinking of the article author, is how White House or Trump as a single entity, or a person can fix Bitcoin entirely. Bitcoin is decentralized and no single entity that is either government or person can fix it. It needs community consensus for any technical upgrade to fix anything.
Let's End the FUD.
The author doesn't know the difference between crypto and Bitcoin anyway, it's all the same to him. Articles like this regularly appear every time the price of BTC drops, and it's nothing to be angry about - new BTC obituaries will soon follow from the same so-called journalists who write such stories without knowing the difference between Bitcoin and blockchain.
I don't honestly see anything worth discussing in this FUD considering that absolutely nothing in it is new. I've been around since 2014 and each time there is a bear market, these roaches crawl out of their wholes to basically say "bitcoin is dead because it dropped". Funny thing is that they always use the ATH for their reasoning but none of them tell you that for example when I entered the bitcoin world, the price was barely $500 and today it is $60,000
The only thing new about this FUD is that the authors have brought their extremely polarized political war into the bitcoin world... that doesn't make it worthy of its own topic either.
No, it wasn't the author here who brought Bitcoin to the US polarized political war, it was the crypto industry when they became the #1 Republican financial backer in the 2024 US elections (and are doing the same this year again). The OP is right (even while showing off his own partisan bias): this is just a typical partisan story from one side writing negative things about one of the other side's things. In other words, it would be the same if it were a Republican writer talking about how terrible immigrants are, because favoring immigrants is a "Democrat thing".
Today, Bitcoin and crypto are "Trump/Republican things". That's a brand that it's stuck with until the crypto industry's backing of the Republican party stops (or equalizes, like other industries do), and even then it's going to take a long time for Bitcoin and crypto to be non-partisan again, if it ever happens at all.
Bitcoin went up 500% under president Biden because it was non-partisan during that period. Now ~50% of Americans hope Bitcoin crashes because they think it will be bad for the other side (which it would be).
So you are saying, first Trump used Bitcoin to get votes from bitcoin community and now the opposition will use Bitcoin to take him down as president. Well that means the political cycle concept is right if it is not the super cycle, which has failed as a theory for now due to the arrival of a bear market. Do you think this is the start of a political cycle or what, although this article or whatever they plan to do as opposition, can't affect the adoption or price of Bitcoin, then why even try?
Actually they need to engage with it, otherwise, he might not have won the election but I think that's also partially right. He had all the cards in his hand and he played them right even if this one was played wrong (if) he would still have won but he gave bull run to us and that's for sure. Banks are dying to adopt bitcoin etfs because their customers are running away haha.
What economic purpose do they want from Bitcoin? It is a commodity, just like gold. What is gold doing to their economy? The money that goes out from Bitcoin is nothing if compared to the money that vanished from gold. This article is bullshit, and whoever wrote it must have been in a bad mood. Because it depends on the governments and institutions on how they want to move ahead with this adoption.
Banks are getting more exposure because of their integration of Bitcoin ETFs. The money going from the banks is now returning to them because new Bitcoin investors are preferring ETFs since they are afraid to hold the keys to their funds, so they want the banks to hold it for them. They chose partial freedom or no freedom if checked wisely, anyway, it was their choice.
They are blaming it as if they gave it a fair chance. With Trump, it was a fair chance, but Trump was a guy who made this chance fair for himself and made a lot of money. But Bitcoin doesnt need them. They can move on if they want or if they can.
All I can say is that since there's a dip in Bitcoin and now they are using it for political reasons. It's clearly a way for them to win the election by using bitcoin like the one trump did when he was running. In my opinion, they are just using bitcoin to take other competitors on political war. One more thing, there will always be people who will spread negative news or information when bitcoin's price movement goes down like this dip and become silent when it's increasing.
from their first paragraph i already know they didnt make their research about bitcoin. what do they mean, what took so long? lol if they made enough research theyll know this isnt the first time bitcoins value dropped. did they only hear about bitcoin recently???
Crypto to be precise, not Bitcoin.
Even if it's about Bitcoin, have you checked the timing?
Why now that Bitcoin is going into its bear market since it's 3 years of uptrend?
Hail it when it's pumping, ridicule it when it's dumping, that's the game.
Open your eyes, this is the same game they have been playing for years, digest it at your own risk and miss the best opportunity for the next 5 years to come.
But as I said above, the game is now connected to hyper-polarized US politics. Now buying Bitcoin means you have to take a political side. That wasn't the case in previous cycles.
That means that this cycle is probably going to go a lot lower because this multiplies the volatility.
There are many ways to provoke something and this kind of propaganda doesn't just occur around governments in power opponents will also try to exploit certain circumstances for their own gain. There's a lot of hate against Bitcoin and it's probably not just from the one source we've seen, as there's been a lot of hate created to undermine Bitcoin's progress. Overall the content emphasizes crypto as a whole, but they try to link one to the other.
I'm skeptical of the author because he doesn't seem to differentiate between crypto and Bitcoin, and he even talks about groups or government entities that overall have no direct influence on Bitcoin's progress. Bitcoin has faced numerous challenges before, yet it continues to grow rapidly without direct interference from any group or government. Based on its past performance, we should know how Bitcoin is developing.
I'm still wondering why posts like this don't come up when bitcoin is bullish, the writer hasn't really followed bitcoin's market history to arrive at this conclusion, because if he has, he would understand that bitcoin had dropped in the past over 50% yet it still recovered. Then there were lots of propaganda claiming that bitcoin is dead and some claimed crypto was gone for good, never to recover as usual.
This writer, linking crypto, especially Bitcoin to Trump shows clearly his bias reasoning. I am going to ignore this one too, nothing meaningful to pick out.
Funny article, almost as good as what the ECB guys Schaaf/Bindseil regularly write
This is the only interesting part.
First: Which other asset, besides fiat and real estate (and consumer goods, including jewelry), is held by 30% of the US population? That's already a phenomenal success! (It can't be more than 100%, remind you.)
Second: They get the mining bubble wrong. The mining bubble probably happened because the miners increased their hashrate more than was justified, by going public and investing with borrowed money. Well, that would have worked if Bitcoin was at $200,000. Now it's a painful rebalancing process. While the price being lower also means that demand hasn't exploded as the miners thought, this doesn't mean that there's something fundamentally wrong. It even could have worked out for the miners: they're now, at least in part, successful AI/mining hybrids.
Third: The last part they actually get correct - there is indeed a rebalancing from "risky" to "safe" assets in the market. But that's something quite normal and has nothing to do with Bitcoin's utility.
How is this supposed to happen? Unfortunately, Democrats were rather in favor of more restrictive laws and regulation. Even if the Price increased, this does not mean it was a good change for Bitcoin other than the financial gains.
Anyway. Bitcoin may have spiked during the Presidency of Biden but I believe you are wrong to think it was a spike UNDER his Presidency. It simply happened. In the same way, Bitcoin is still following the previous cycle waves 'under' Trump. It is however not a United States company we own shares of. Nor is it a United States owned Asset. It is definitely influenced by Presidents of the country but it at least WAS not the focus of a President so far. Now that Trump is using a Bitcoin focus to attract more of the younger voters, he of course has a higher influence. I agree.
There is some sort of contradiction between the left and the right though. And for this reason, the financial backing of the right by the Cryptocurrency industry will probably never equalize with that of the left. This is because if you had a company and either the left or the right had a FOCUS on what grows it, you would probably want to back it too. Considering the left has not shown a particular motivation to make Bitcoin better as in enhancing regulation for Privacy, for Freedom et cetera, it is clear to me that there will not be an equalization of the backing UNLESS the left starts publicly showing an interest for what I just mentioned too.
The right is known as 'rebels', their behavior and definition in my opinion aligns much more to the average wishes of the regular Bitcoin user than the left does. And again, when you have your campaign particularly focused on making The United States a 'Bitcoin country', the Bitcoin industry will obviously choose you.
It is a hard thing to equalize the support from both parties. The left seems more focused on cracking down on crime and more regulation, which also means less Freedom of movement for Bitcoin users. The right seems more focused on providing a stronger sense of freedom as much as possible, which attracts them.
It is also a hard thing to make things equal considering so many people see Bitcoin now as a 'Trump thing' like you say. Because I do not see it as a 'Trump thing', to me Bitcoin is not any different. Regulations are, support from the United States Presidency is. But Bitcoin itself is not any different. And I am sure that if you looked at it outside the box you would see the same thing.
Bitcoin has been seen as the 'Currency of Criminals' for a LONG time now. Trump supporting it does not change that in any way nor would have Harris. The only thing that has changed now except of course the Billionaires investing so much in it is that a President has attracted Bitcoin users to vote for them. That is pretty much it.
About 62% of Americans own stocks, for a total of about $62T.
Estimates for ownership of Bitcoin range from 14%-15% according to scientific polling, and that is heavily concentrated among younger (read: poorer) investors. And if you remove the non-mined, Satoshi, MSTR, and Whale wallets, ownership of Bitcoin by end-user individuals is probably only a small fraction of Bitcoin's total market cap, so I doubt that Bitcoin/crypto is even 0.5% of stocks in terms of consumer investment volume.
Now, add to the above that women are only ~13% of Bitcoin owners (and ~0% of posters here ), and what do you get? Donald Trump's voting base.
This is more evidence that Bitcoin has become a purely partisan thing in the USA (and probably to a lesser extent in other countries). And thus more evidence that Bitcoin's price is going to be heavily tied to the popularity of the US Republican party and Trump.
I've never heard of a new technology achieving ubiquity by being a purely partisan phenomenon, but there's a first time for everything I guess...
Lots of companies with lots of different products thread the needle of partisanship in the USA. For instance, most industries donate to both sides (maybe not always an even split, but nothing like the 95/5 R/D split that crypto does).
And while I get there are a lot of enthusiasts around who love Bitcoin for purely academic reasons, I suspect 99% of people who own Bitcoin do so, "for the financial gains" .
But to be clear, lots of industries lobby the government to reduce regulations without turning themselves into a partisan football. Crypto could have done that too, but they didn't, and now they must live with the consequences.
Everyone who is panic selling now is complaining that their money got halved.
In a few months they will be complaining that they sold at the bottom.
Every. single. time.
Remember when China "banned Bitcoin" and all the hate that Bitcoin got? Feels a bit like that right now.