Trump's Cryptocurrency Policy Outlook: Potential Impact on the Crypto Ecosystem

After Trump took office, the policies he might introduce regarding crypto assets have been the focus of the entire crypto ecosystem. Recently, the crypto czar he appointed also officially made a series of statements. From these statements, it appears that many of the crypto policies he promised before the election are likely to be rolled out one after another.

If he were just an ordinary politician, we would mainly focus on his policies and statements.

But as a politician who does not play by the rules, he has his own dedicated crypto team;

His team has personally operated and laid out multiple crypto projects;

His team is also continuously trading and operating various crypto assets.

Therefore, every move of such a political figure in the crypto ecosystem generates a lot of speculation and imagination.

For instance, many people have long bet on the so-called "American coin," meaning that any crypto asset closely related to the United States could potentially benefit from Trump's crypto policies.

More specifically, many are closely watching the crypto assets bought, sold, and held by his WLFI team, believing that the "American coins" among his holdings are likely to directly benefit from future policies.

I have always been very skeptical of this viewpoint.

Since last year, I have been very supportive of Trump's overall direction and attitude towards the crypto ecosystem. The development and trend of the crypto ecosystem are something that no organization or individual can stop or reverse.

Regardless of Trump's considerations, thoughts, or interests, as the leader of the United States, his bold step forward will greatly accelerate the development of the crypto ecosystem worldwide.

It is not an exaggeration to predict that after his policies are implemented, under the demonstration effect of the United States, the global society will significantly accelerate its pace into the crypto ecosystem.

Remaining passive and choosing to ignore will only lead to missing historical opportunities again and being left behind by the world's trends.

However, when it comes to his policies, we need to examine them specifically and objectively.

I believe there will definitely be policies that are beneficial to the entire crypto ecosystem, but there may also be some controversial and biased policies.

If there are indeed such policies, it will depend on what they favor. If they favor creating an environment that is more open and relaxed than any other country, benefiting all builders and participants, that would be excellent.

But if they specifically favor projects or assets that cater to American teams, will those projects and assets truly benefit?

I believe that even if they can benefit, it will be in the short term, while long-term benefits will depend on the projects themselves.

Projects that can benefit in the long term must be recognized by different interests, teams, and institutions globally.

Such assets that can be accepted by everyone and achieve the highest consensus must rely as little as possible on any centralized institutions and be as neutral as possible to any interest groups.

Among the assets held by WLFI, there are also some tokens from TRON. Does this mean he will specifically introduce favorable crypto policies for TRON and TRON tokens?

Even if he does, will European governments widely adopt TRON? Will European institutions heavily invest in TRON tokens?

I can't imagine that.

The reason gold has been recognized as a store of value by people of different races and regions for thousands of years is because of its neutrality and independence from human credit endorsement.

It is produced during nuclear fusion in the interiors of stars. All its properties are set by nature and are gifts from nature to humanity.

These properties do not change due to manipulation by any government or interest group.

Because of this, historically, no matter how it has been regulated or prohibited, even when the U.S. government once issued decrees banning private ownership of gold, it still could not stop people's enthusiasm for holding and pursuing it.

Crypto assets are not produced by nature; they are invented and created by humans, inherently infused with human genes. Therefore, to achieve a higher consensus and consolidate stronger value, they need to be more decentralized, more resistant to censorship, more neutral, and more independent.

Recently, the shutdown of a certain "blockchain" developed and deployed by an exchange we were once familiar with caused a stir in the community.

Many were lamenting the decline of that exchange after it changed hands, but I was more concerned that the shutdown of that "blockchain" proved it was not a blockchain at all, but rather a traditional distributed service system.

Can something that can be shut down by humans still be called a blockchain?

Such a "blockchain" is fine as a game or entertainment, but can we imagine governments and institutions from all continents deploying applications on such a blockchain, or even issuing assets?

The same reasoning applies now that the U.S. and the world have a political figure in power who acts unpredictably and dares to take bold actions. While I am paying attention to the potential positive impacts of his policies on the crypto ecosystem, I am also extremely wary of the possible negative effects his words and policies may have on the crypto ecosystem:

For example, will he directly intervene in the development of crypto projects?

Furthermore, what methods might he use to intervene in crypto projects, and to what extent?

If there is a platform controlled by one of his policies, would other countries and institutions dare to publish their projects on it? Would they feel safe buying assets from such a platform?

Years ago, Vitalik pondered the following questions:

If a government forcibly intervenes in Ethereum, will Ethereum's operation be affected?

If humanity faces a third world war, will Ethereum's operation be affected?

How can we positively resist these potential negative impacts?

I believe there is only one answer, which remains my unchanging viewpoint:

To decentralize as much as possible in operation, resist censorship as much as possible, and remain neutral to all interest groups as much as possible.

Only such platforms and assets can allow global governments, institutions, and humanity to embrace crypto assets, enabling human civilization to transition from off-chain to on-chain.

Therefore, even if there are projects that are favored in his policies, for such projects to develop long-term and be accepted globally, they must maintain neutrality as much as possible and avoid negative interference from him.

Mr. Buffett believes in the fundamental reasons for the U.S. stock market are the rule of law and market economy.

In my view, the core of these two points is that the U.S. has created a fair, free, and open environment that allows various enterprises to grow freely in this environment, rather than specifically favoring a certain type of project and granting that type of project privileges and attention.

Projects and assets nurtured through privileges and attention, no matter how dazzling they may appear in the short term, will ultimately be abandoned and eliminated by history in the long term.