Former U.S. President Donald Trump has promised to reverse the anti-crypto policies of current President Joe Biden and SEC Chair Gary Gensler within an hour of taking office if re-elected.
This pledge was made during a recent San Francisco fundraiser.
At the fundraiser, Trump proclaimed himself a “crypto president”.
The fundraiser, which was hosted by venture capitalists David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, successfully raised $12 million.
Notable attendees included Gemini co-founders Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss and several unidentified Coinbase executives.
Trump, who has previously been critical of cryptocurrency, has recently shown signs of warming up to the sector.
In February, he acknowledged the necessity for regulation but recognized that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are increasingly being used in payments.
He admitted that he could “live with it one way or the other.”
By March, Trump stated that he did not intend to prevent people from using cryptocurrency.
His pro-crypto stance became even more pronounced during a May 8 event at Mar-a-Lago, where he criticized the Biden administration’s policies and urged crypto supporters to vote for him.
True to his word, Trump’s campaign began accepting crypto donations on May 21.
Trump’s shift in attitude towards cryptocurrency mirrors a broader trend in U.S. politics, as the issue gains importance among voters.
Recent surveys reveal that over 20% of Americans have owned cryptocurrency and consider it a significant issue.
In response to the rising importance of crypto, the Biden administration has also initiated efforts to engage with the crypto community.
Notably, the SEC’s stance on spot Ethereum ETFs shifted last month, resulting in approvals on May 23 after initially expected denials.
The Federal Government has taken a somewhat cautious stance on cryptocurrencies.
In February 2021, the Central Bank of Nigeria issued a directive prohibiting banks and financial institutions from facilitating transactions involving cryptocurrencies.
The CBN cited concerns about money laundering, terrorism financing, and other illicit activities as reasons for the ban.
However, this directive faced pushback from the public and some lawmakers, who argued for more inclusive regulation rather than an outright ban.
