Blockchains, Cryptocurrencies, and Trump

[JuniorLion]

Given that Trump's tenure lasts till Jan 2029, and he has stepped up his efforts to boost the Crypto space, the odds of the price of major cryptos/layer-1 blockchains rising within the coming 4 years is higher.

May be good to throw in a bit to speculate (and knowing full well it may go to 0), and exit by Nov 2028.

 

[Vincent_G]

It was up 10% when Trump announced some national reserve using few coins, and then it is now down 10% when Trump announces tariffs, just within roughly 24 hours. You decide if you like this kind of volatility, considering bitcoin is already a "stable" coin. Other crypto part of Trump's announcement suffers even greater volatility.

For crypto, invest what you can afford to lose.

 

[DevilPlate]

It was up 10% when Trump announced some national reserve using few coins, and then it is now down 10% when Trump announces tariffs, just within roughly 24 hours. You decide if you like this kind of volatility, considering bitcoin is already a "stable" coin. Other crypto part of Trump's announcement suffers even greater volatility.

For crypto, invest what you can afford to lose.

Trump anyhow pump shyt coins
To include other shytty coins to US reserve (other than BTC) was laughable.

 

[reddevil0728]

It was up 10% when Trump announced some national reserve using few coins, and then it is now down 10% when Trump announces tariffs, just within roughly 24 hours. You decide if you like this kind of volatility, considering bitcoin is already a "stable" coin. Other crypto part of Trump's announcement suffers even greater volatility.

For crypto, invest what you can afford to lose.

For speculation lor

 

[BBCWatcher]

I have no idea how a U.S. president (even this one) could buy and hold nontrivial amounts of cryptocurrencies without a Congressional appropriation. And his own party in Congress can’t even agree on whether the sky is blue. In fairness the cryptocurrency markets seem to be taking this news in stride: slightly higher odds of some market impact but only that.

I suppose he could instruct his FBI Director to pause sales of seized cryptocurrencies and declare that small sum the Trump Cryptocurrency Reserve. Or something like that. Then instruct his officials to sell seized cryptocurrencies when volatility allows.

It’ll be a long, dumb, and damaging ~3.9 years.

 

[reddevil0728]

I have no idea how a U.S. president (even this one) could buy and hold nontrivial amounts of cryptocurrencies without a Congressional appropriation. And his own party in Congress can’t even agree on whether the sky is blue. In fairness the cryptocurrency markets seem to be taking this news in stride: slightly higher odds of some market impact but only that.

I suppose he could instruct his FBI Director to pause sales of seized cryptocurrencies and declare that small sum the Trump Cryptocurrency Reserve. Or something like that. Then instruct his officials to sell seized cryptocurrencies when volatility allows.

It’ll going to be a long, dumb, and damaging ~3.9 years.

Oh well. What to do.

Americans voted for it

 

[BBCWatcher]

Oh well. What to do.

Not much. The generalized suggestions are still good ones: build up and maintain an emergency reserve fund of 6 to 9 months (a combination of an ordinary bank account, SSBs, and OA if you have a mortgage work well), cover genuine insurance necessities, dollar cost average into low cost and well diversified investments, and don't do anything stupid (smoke, drink excessively, etc.)

At the margins you might make some tweaks. For example, maybe you postpone your Disney World vacation until U.S. leadership changes and pick Tokyo Disney instead. I can understand how greater uncertainty might influence highly discretionary decisions at the margins.

Americans voted for it

A plurality of voting Americans picked Donald Trump, yes. And they should have foreseen this trade war (as a notable example) and understood its ramifications, absolutely. But I don't think it's fair to lean too much into a "blame the voters" mentality. Some of them genuinely believed Donald Trump would keep his promises — and not do things he didn't promise, such as launch a trade war against Canada in flagrant violation of the trade agreement he negotiated and signed. Some of them just got bad information. And lots of non-swing state Harris supporters didn't bother voting since they couldn't realistically decide the election. I don't think that's at all wise, but many would be voters feel that way.

But yeah, elections have consequences. Sometimes gigantic consequences.

 

[reddevil0728]

Not much. The generalized suggestions are still good ones: build up and maintain an emergency reserve fund of 6 to 9 months (a combination of an ordinary bank account, SSBs, and OA if you have a mortgage work well), cover genuine insurance necessities, dollar cost average into low cost and well diversified investments, and don't do anything stupid (smoke, drink excessively, etc.)

At the margins you might make some tweaks. For example, maybe you postpone your Disney World vacation until U.S. leadership changes and pick Tokyo Disney instead. I can understand how greater uncertainty might influence highly discretionary decisions at the margins.

A plurality of voting Americans picked Donald Trump, yes. And they should have foreseen this trade war (as a notable example) and understood its ramifications, absolutely. But I don't think it's fair to lean too much into a "blame the voters" mentality. Some of them genuinely believed Donald Trump would keep his promises — and not do things he didn't promise, such as launch a trade war against Canada in flagrant violation of the trade agreement he negotiated and signed. Some of them just got bad information. And lots of non-swing state Harris supporters didn't bother voting since they couldn't realistically decide the election. I don't think that's at all wise, but many would be voters feel that way.

But yeah, elections have consequences. Sometimes gigantic consequences.

That's why I didn't mention anything about blaming but you seem to have that thought.

I am just saying that he has the mandate to do it

 

[BBCWatcher]

That's why I didn't mention anything about blaming but you seem to have that thought.

I'm simply heading off that idea at the pass.

I am just saying that he has the mandate to do it

Congress (an elected body) has delegated significant tariff setting authority to the President, and the President was elected. Congress could rescind that delegated authority if it chooses to do so. To rescind this authority would require 2/3rds supermajorities in both houses of Congress to override a presumed presidential veto. A tariff is a tax, and Congress clearly has the power to levy (or not levy) taxes. So if Congress doesn't like Trump tariffs it can change them or abolish them. Taxing is so fundamental a Congressional power it's in Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

There might be another court case or two if the President is exceeding his current, delegated legal authority which is potent but not omnipotent. There are already about 100 federal court cases challenging prior presidential acts, and it's only March 4, 2025. Trump's arguments for enacting this round of tariffs are obviously pretexts (especially with Canada), but it's an interesting question whether the tariffs are illegal under U.S. law. I assume somebody will try to make that argument in federal court. It shouldn't be hard to find injured parties with standing.

Assuming no extremely bad scenarios there will be a federal election on November 3, 2026, and a new Congress sworn in on January 3, 2027. (Although that's a Sunday, so it's possible it'll be January 4.) All members of the lower house stand for election every 2 years, and about 1/3rd of the upper house does as well. If (when?) enough American voters are upset enough with the composition of Congress, they can change most of Congress in late 2026 if they wish. There are some media reports (including video clips) of angry voters letting their Congresspeople know how they feel.

 

[reddevil0728]

I'm simply heading off that idea at the pass.

lol there wasn’t any idea till you brought it up

Congress (an elected body) has delegated significant tariff setting authority to the President, and the President was elected. Congress could rescind that delegated authority if it chooses to do so. To rescind this authority would require 2/3rds supermajorities in both houses of Congress to override a presumed presidential veto. A tariff is a tax, and Congress clearly has the power to levy (or not levy) taxes. So if Congress doesn't like Trump tariffs it can change them or abolish them. Taxing is so fundamental a Congressional power it's in Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

There might be another court case or two if the President is exceeding his current, delegated legal authority which is potent but not omnipotent. There are already about 100 federal court cases challenging prior presidential acts, and it's only March 4, 2025. Trump's arguments for enacting this round of tariffs are obviously pretexts (especially with Canada), but it's an interesting question whether the tariffs are illegal under U.S. law. I assume somebody will try to make that argument in federal court. It shouldn't be hard to find injured parties with standing.

Assuming no extremely bad scenarios there will be a federal election on November 3, 2026, and a new Congress sworn in on January 3, 2027. (Although that's a Sunday, so it's possible it'll be January 4.) All members of the lower house stand for election every 2 years, and about 1/3rd of the upper house does as well. If (when?) enough American voters are upset enough with the composition of Congress, they can change most of Congress in late 2026 if they wish. There are some media reports (including video clips) of angry voters letting their Congresspeople know how they feel.

Well practical impact is more important than theoretical.

 

[BBCWatcher]

The next brewing crisis is March 14. Under current law U.S. federal budget appropriations will end then. Republicans evidently now want to pass yet another continuing resolution (CR) which extends funding into September. But Republicans don't have enough members of their own party wiling to do that. Some are nihilists, basically. Moreover, under current Senate rules a CR requires 60 votes (out of 100) in the Senate. That means at least 7 opposition senators need to support it.

It's not entirely clear what the Democratic Party's views are, or which will be controlling in the end. But what seems to be happening is that the Democratic members of Congress have a simple requirement: if you want any of our votes for a CR (or a debt limit increase) then President Trump must follow the law, including appropriations (which are laws). He must spend what Congress appropriates, in the ways Congress specifies. Otherwise it's all pointless. It's impossible to agree to terms that are unenforceable and won't be honored. Republicans are reportedly complaining that obeying the law is too much to ask. (Hilarious, isn't it?)

I have no great wisdom to offer here about the future. My crystal ball is not any better than anyone else's. There have been U.S. federal government shutdowns before, even fairly long ones. Republicans have always been blamed for these shutdowns because they deserve the blame. Republicans have a trifecta (presidency, House, Senate) and have the numbers to pass a regular budget on their own. (A regular budget can be passed with only Republican votes. But they're so disorganized in the House they can't really do much of anything. It's not really a natural governing party, not currently.) Anything/everything bad that happens is on them. With power comes responsibility.

 

[CrashWire]

I have no idea how a U.S. president (even this one) could buy and hold nontrivial amounts of cryptocurrencies without a Congressional appropriation. And his own party in Congress can’t even agree on whether the sky is blue. In fairness the cryptocurrency markets seem to be taking this news in stride: slightly higher odds of some market impact but only that.

There might be another court case or two if the President is exceeding his current, delegated legal authority which is potent but not omnipotent. There are already about 100 federal court cases challenging prior presidential acts, and it's only March 4, 2025. Trump's arguments for enacting this round of tariffs are obviously pretexts (especially with Canada), but it's an interesting question whether the tariffs are illegal under U.S. law. I assume somebody will try to make that argument in federal court. It shouldn't be hard to find injured parties with standing.

Trump has had 8 years to plan and test the US justice system and figure out just how much power the executive has.

But more importantly, I don't think he cares if the things he issues Executive Orders for actually work out. All he cares about is that his actions move markets, and then he or his cronies do their insider trades before he retracts them.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Trump has had 8 years to plan and test the US justice system and figure out just how much power the executive has.
But more importantly, I don't think he cares if the things he issues Executive Orders for actually work out. All he cares about is that his actions move markets, and then he or his cronies do their insider trades before he retracts them.

“Pump and dump,” in other words. If you think that’s what’s going on — and unfortunately it would be a rational thought in my view — then you probably don’t want to be anywhere near that pumped and dumped market. The odds are greater you’ll be the dumpee.

 

[reddevil0728]

“Pump and dump,” in other words. If you think that’s what’s going on — and unfortunately it would be a rational thought in my view — then you probably don’t want to be anywhere near that pumped and dumped market. The odds are greater you’ll be the dumpee.

So stop dca-ing?

 

[BBCWatcher]

So stop dca-ing?

Into s**tcoin markets? Truth Social stock? I don’t think any form of participation makes sense unless perhaps you have too much money and are extremely bored. But a global stock index fund is fine. A global stock index fund is not the first or even fortieth choice for pump and dump efforts.

 

[reddevil0728]

Into s**tcoin markets? Truth Social stock? I don’t think any form of participation makes sense unless perhaps you have too much money and are extremely bored. But a global stock index fund is fine. A global stock index fund is not the first or even fortieth choice for pump and dump efforts.

So broad market index is more ok?

 

[BBCWatcher]

So broad market index is more ok?

Yes, it’s much harder/less profitable to “pump and dump” the whole global stock market.

 

[Youshallnotknow]

I have been doing my own arbitrage trading thru using my credit card to fund it. Have ways to cash out with low fees, then pay up the balance so earn the CC points. Even small margin but after gas fees/fees I still earn cashback/points.

 

[d5dude]

I have no idea how a U.S. president (even this one) could buy and hold nontrivial amounts of cryptocurrencies without a Congressional appropriation. And his own party in Congress can’t even agree on whether the sky is blue. In fairness the cryptocurrency markets seem to be taking this news in stride: slightly higher odds of some market impact but only that.

I suppose he could instruct his FBI Director to pause sales of seized cryptocurrencies and declare that small sum the Trump Cryptocurrency Reserve. Or something like that. Then instruct his officials to sell seized cryptocurrencies when volatility allows.

Congress? There is only the executive branch now, Trump is the US govt.

It’ll be a long, dumb, and damaging ~3.9 years.

I agree...

 

[DevilPlate]

At least Trump and his Dodge team is trying to reduce/control national debt.

Short term pain, long term gain?
Also looks like Russia/Ukraine war gona end soon?