The crypto attitude of the US vice presidential candidate: SEC chairman is the worst character

On July 15, 2024, former U.S. President Donald Trump selected Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate for the 2024 presidential election. Vance has been a vocal supporter of the Cryptocurrency industry throughout his political career and has previously publicly opposed the SEC.

Earlier this year, Vance led several Republican senators to write a letter to Gensler expressing concerns about the SEC’s enforcement actions against the CryptocurrencyMining company Debt Box. On May 16, Vance and 60 senators voted to repeal the controversial SEC SAB 121 accounting standard, which is a trap to prevent U.S. banks from custodial policy suggestions for encryption assets.

Related reading: ‘Trump’s chosen running mate J.D. Vance is not simple, Silicon Valley VC+encryption ally ‘Buff’ blessing’

It can be said that the election of J.D. Vance will bring stronger political momentum to the development of the Cryptocurrency industry.

J.D. Vance’s speech at the private Remedy Fest hosted by Y Combinator and Bloomberg on February 28th. He said, “Gary Gensler’s approach to regulating blockchain and cryptocurrency seems to be completely opposite to what it should be.”

The following is an excerpt of the speech in textual form:

If we were to choose the worst character, I believe, at least in terms of substantive differences, I am sure he is a good person, that would be Gary Gensler. So Gary Gensler is almost completely opposite to my views.

For Gary, I have two questions, one of which is that I think he wants to inject politics into the US securities business long. But in some ways, the more fundamental issue, or at least the most relevant issue to this meeting, is that Gary’s regulatory approach to blockchain and Cryptocurrency is almost the opposite of the right way.

I may be oversimplifying a bit, but the question the SEC seems to be asking when regulating cryptocurrency is whether it is a useful token. If it is a useful token, they seem to want to ban it. If it is a useless token, they seem not to care.

I tend to think that we should reverse things here, right? I’m worried about financialization. I’m worried, frankly, that much of the stuff in Cryptocurrency is fundamentally fake.

But if a Token is indeed useful, it’s the kind of thing you know, of course it needs to be regulated, of course you need to be careful how consumers interact with it. But you don’t want to just remove these things.

What I’m really worried about is that by 2024, the latest challengers to the existing giants of social media will need some blockchain technology to make their business work, maybe they will need a verified Token.

When I talk to frens who are still in the venture capital industry, the most exciting companies are those that are doing real things in the communication field in the 21st century, more precisely in 2024. These companies often rely on efficient tokens for things like verification. If we can’t make verification possible, then we will make it very difficult to challenge the existing giants in this field.

“Original Link”