Regulatory Developments

[Dexter kaycee]

How do you think the US government’s stance on crypto regulation is going to impact bitcoin’s price and adoption in the future ?

[zasad@]

I'll outline the basic idea, and then you can explore the possible scenarios yourself. The most popular stablecoins are USDT and USDC. They are backed by approximately 80% of US Treasuries. The stablecoin issuers profit, and the people who use them finance the US economy for free.
The US government is interested in the development of the crypto market.

This data is from March 2025, but the growth dynamics are positive.


There are two opinions about Bitcoin. I'm inclined to think that Bitcoin may soon become obsolete and that this asset will be removed from exchanges. I don't think this will happen next year. It could happen in 5 or 10 years.

[Gozie51]

How do you think the US government’s stance on crypto regulation is going to impact bitcoin’s price and adoption in the future ?

On a deeper thought, there are certain futuristic factors that you have to consider too about this. Bitcoin didn't have the centre attraction in US during biden administration. Biden was rather focusing on strengthening the dollar, Usdt and CBDC because they were all pegged with the dollar. So what happens if Trump leaves office?

Trump is making up to his campaign promises, afterall he didn't push for bitcoin at the first quarter in office. He focused on Trump coin.

[Z-tight]

How do you think the US government’s stance on crypto regulation is going to impact bitcoin’s price and adoption in the future ?

It is obvious that the Trump administration is much more receptive to the cryptocurrency industry than the past Biden adminstration, so that in itself is a positive at least. The past administration operated through regulation by enforcement and that was not so good for the industry.

However, to answer your question, i don't think their regulatory stance is going to affect BTC's price in the long run, it could in the short term. I mean, if there is a negative news out of there, weak hands would surely react. But in the long run, it would have limited effect. We do not need to look to countries and centralized institutions to gauge the success of the network in the future. BTC was doing well ever before institutions got involved, so their actions should not be looked upon as the sole determining factor in how the network would look like in the future.

[PrivacyG]

It is obvious that the Trump administration is much more receptive to the cryptocurrency industry than the past Biden adminstration, so that in itself is a positive at least. The past administration operated through regulation by enforcement and that was not so good for the industry.

Do not worry, the current Administration is operating through Melania Coin, Trump Coin and all the other Shit Coins and rugs.  None of them were better.  The system is not to be Trusted, they will not play the Decentralization game.  Particularly The United States, they will never give up their Staff of Power for us who hate Fiat and being chained by the system.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Do not worry, the current Administration is operating through Melania Coin, Trump Coin and all the other Shit Coins and rugs.  None of them were better.  The system is not to be Trusted, they will not play the Decentralization game.  Particularly The United States, they will never give up their Staff of Power for us who hate Fiat and being chained by the system.

Not only am I not worried, but I am glad that the current administration has banned CBDCs in the US, which has scuppered CBDC projects in other developed countries that have had to halt or delay them. Also, instead of selling Bitcoins as the previous administration did, they have created a reserve so that they do not sell any of the ones they have, and theoretically acquire more, which they have not done yet, but that is better than selling.

Instead of having a hostile stance, they have a friendly stance toward Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, as Z-tight says, no matter how much your personal dislike of Trump prevents you from recognizing it.

[zasad@]

Not only am I not worried, but I am glad that the current administration has banned CBDCs in the US, which has scuppered CBDC projects in other developed countries that have had to halt or delay them. Also, instead of selling Bitcoins as the previous administration did, they have created a reserve so that they do not sell any of the ones they have, and theoretically acquire more, which they have not done yet, but that is better than selling.

Instead of having a hostile stance, they have a friendly stance toward Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, as Z-tight says, no matter how much your personal dislike of Trump prevents you from recognizing it.

On the contrary, this worries me. If the US decided to issue a CBDC, the central bank would be responsible for it. But the US government is not responsible for stablecoins issued by private corporations. This is very convenient, as no one will be able to claim anything against the US government

[yhiaali3]

At least the US government's position is clearer and more organized than that of other countries, especially those in the European Union.

While I don't have much faith in Trump and his ambiguous intentions, we can't deny his positive role in adopting a more open policy toward Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in the United States. This has encouraged more open policies in many other countries around the world.

Regulatory clarity could pave the way for major investment funds to enter the market and for Bitcoin to be included in retirement funds and financial institutions, or used as a hedge against inflation or as a reserve asset.
This would lead to increased demand and a higher price in the long run.

[PrivacyG]

Not only am I not worried, but I am glad that the current administration has banned CBDCs in the US, which has scuppered CBDC projects in other developed countries that have had to halt or delay them. Also, instead of selling Bitcoins as the previous administration did, they have created a reserve so that they do not sell any of the ones they have, and theoretically acquire more, which they have not done yet, but that is better than selling.

Instead of having a hostile stance, they have a friendly stance toward Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, as Z-tight says, no matter how much your personal dislike of Trump prevents you from recognizing it.

I dislike politics in general and I do not trust any politician.  If you look in to my Post history you will find out that I contradicted Biden supporters some time ago, I recognize what is good while I stay realistic instead of being blinded by politics and blindly following a leader like a sheep.  Unlike the general thought, if there is one thing I do not like about Trump it does not mean I automatically like Biden.  And the opposite is just as true.

To me, even if Trump adopts Bitcoin as a national Currency it would mean nothing after his family pretty much scammed a LOT of people out of their Money.  To be honest.  It looks like Trump only likes Bitcoin because it pulled a lot of votes to his name and because he can make Money out of it.  I have seen a lot of excitement for Musk being implicated in the United States leadership and I really do not understand it.  I can not be excited about somebody who knowingly manipulated the Markets for a LONG time swinging it up and down to his fun.

Also.  Did Trump not say days ago that he will use Bitcoin to pay off the United States debt?  This directly contradicts your point about selling.  If he is planning to use Bitcoin to pay off debt, he will have to accumulate and then sell a SHIT load of Bitcoin.

More over.  I can not imagine a single controlling hand selling Bitcoin in a negative way.  I can not wait for Michael Saylor to start giving up his stash.  Not because I do not want him to like Bitcoin but because I know people are hoping he will never sell, blindly forgetting that Bitcoin is still an investment to him that he will one day have to liquidate.  This completely unrealistic hope that the United States and Michael Saylor and who ever else never sells their Bitcoin but only accumulates will hit you all like a brick when they start burning through their stash.

I can not nit pick and love Trump for the good things he did for Bitcoin while closing an eye for all the other B S he did and act like he is a Saint.  He is a Scammer and to me this is where the discussion pretty much ends.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Also.  Did Trump not say days ago that he will use Bitcoin to pay off the United States debt?  This directly contradicts your point about selling.  If he is planning to use Bitcoin to pay off debt, he will have to accumulate and then sell a SHIT load of Bitcoin.

No, it doesn't contradict it. There is an essential difference between selling Bitcoin right now, as Biden did, and creating a reserve to supposedly sell at some point in the future. Furthermore, that wasn't recently, it was about a year ago, before creating the reserve that prohibits the sale of Bitcoin.

More over.  I can not imagine a single controlling hand selling Bitcoin in a negative way.  I can not wait for Michael Saylor to start giving up his stash.  Not because I do not want him to like Bitcoin but because I know people are hoping he will never sell, blindly forgetting that Bitcoin is still an investment to him that he will one day have to liquidate.  This completely unrealistic hope that the United States and Michael Saylor and who ever else never sells their Bitcoin but only accumulates will hit you all like a brick when they start burning through their stash.

So, that's a wish you have, then. That reminds me of "be careful what you wish for, lest it come true."

I can not nit pick and love Trump for the good things he did for Bitcoin while closing an eye for all the other B S he did and act like he is a Saint.  He is a Scammer and to me this is where the discussion pretty much ends.

It doesn't have to be one thing or the other. I don't like him as a person, it's the same with Milei. What I like are their policies, especially compared to what we had before. The alternative to Trump winning the last election is a US that would be like the UK is now, taking giant steps toward becoming a third world country.

[PrivacyG]

So, that's a wish you have, then. That reminds me of "be careful what you wish for, lest it come true."

It is realistic expectations, not a wish.  Selling 'at some point in the future' does not mean they will sell when Bitcoin peaks in future cycles at 1,000,000 Dollars per Coin.  If The United States needs Money, they may partially liquidate their positions.  The same thing works for Saylor too.  If there is a way to break apart the Trust people have in Bitcoin, selling chunks of their stash is one way to do it.

[Alpha Marine]

Not only am I not worried, but I am glad that the current administration has banned CBDCs in the US, which has scuppered CBDC projects in other developed countries that have had to halt or delay them. Also, instead of selling Bitcoins as the previous administration did, they have created a reserve so that they do not sell any of the ones they have, and theoretically acquire more, which they have not done yet, but that is better than selling.

The CBDC project was doomed to fail from the very beginning; it didn't matter if the current US administration banned it or not. A lot more countries had the idea, but none of them could bring it to life, because it needs to be something that would be demanded. People won't use a coin simply because it's from the government. If there is no demand, it will fail and knowing how most governments operate, there will be a massive supply even though there is no high demand, which would have made it even more worthless.

Instead of having a hostile stance, they have a friendly stance toward Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, as Z-tight says, no matter how much your personal dislike of Trump prevents you from recognizing it.

I agree that it is better to be friendly than totally against it, but how they're moving creates its own problems but I guess "if you pray for rain, you must deal with the mud too".

[zasad@]

The CBDC project was doomed to fail from the very beginning; it didn't matter if the current US administration banned it or not. A lot more countries had the idea, but none of them could bring it to life, because it needs to be something that would be demanded. People won't use a coin simply because it's from the government. If there is no demand, it will fail and knowing how most governments operate, there will be a massive supply even though there is no high demand, which would have made it even more worthless.

I disagree with you. The CBDC project is being actively implemented in many countries and is expected to be fully operational in 2027-2030. In Russia, full-scale testing is already underway. Pensioners, government agencies, and many other organizations will be forced to use CBDC. More information will be available next year.

[Alpha Marine]

I disagree with you. The CBDC project is being actively implemented in many countries and is expected to be fully operational in 2027-2030. In Russia, full-scale testing is already underway. Pensioners, government agencies, and many other organizations will be forced to use CBDC. More information will be available next year.

This is my point exactly. You can't force people to use something when there are alternatives that are way better. If the CBDC projects are as good as advertised, people will use them freely, but if they're shit, people will avoid them. In a market like this, demand and supply play a key role, no matter how the government tries to play its hand. If the thing is shit, the demand will be low, and when the demand is low, it will be worthless. It would only be a matter of time before people figure out that its a waste of time. The countries that launched there aren't talking about it again today.

[bbc.reporter]

How do you think the US government’s stance on crypto regulation is going to impact bitcoin’s price and adoption in the future ?

The American government's stance is presently very good for the future of the cryptospace and this should pump our cryptocoins heheheh, however, it appears that there are speculations and rumors beginning to be heard that there are bitcoin whales who have begun to dump their billions.

If this is true, it also appears that they are making the institutional investors their exit liquidity hehehehe. This is very headshaking but these whales have bought their bitcoins before 2015-2017.

[zasad@]

I disagree with you. The CBDC project is being actively implemented in many countries and is expected to be fully operational in 2027-2030. In Russia, full-scale testing is already underway. Pensioners, government agencies, and many other organizations will be forced to use CBDC. More information will be available next year.

This is my point exactly. You can't force people to use something when there are alternatives that are way better. If the CBDC projects are as good as advertised, people will use them freely, but if they're shit, people will avoid them. In a market like this, demand and supply play a key role, no matter how the government tries to play its hand. If the thing is shit, the demand will be low, and when the demand is low, it will be worthless. It would only be a matter of time before people figure out that its a waste of time. The countries that launched there aren't talking about it again today.

CBDC projects have their pros and cons. CBDCs are central bank money, meaning account holders don't have to worry about the bank going bankrupt or closing. They offer instant payments with no fees, although in my country the Fast Payment System transfers money in one second. However, there are also downsides, including total control and a single control center. But here I adhere more to Murphy's Law