Trump's new vice president Vance supports SocialFi?

Original author: Kaori

On July 15, 2024, local time, former U.S. President Donald Trump has selected Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate for the 2024 presidential election. Vance has repeatedly voiced support for the cryptocurrency industry in his political career and has previously publicly opposed the SEC.

Earlier this year, Vance led several Republican senators in writing a letter to Gensler expressing concerns about the SEC’s enforcement action against Cryptocurrency Mining company DEBT BOX. On May 16, Vance and 60 senators voted to repeal the SEC’s controversial SAB 121 accounting standard, a policy recommendation that traps US banks from custodial encryption assets.

Related reading: “Trump’s designated campaign partner 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 provide stronger political impetus for the development of the cryptocurrency industry.

J.D. Vance’s speech at the private conference Remedy Fest hosted by Y Combinator and Bloomberg on February 28th. He stated that ‘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 text format:

If you want to pick the worst character, I think, at least in substantial disagreement, I am sure he is a good person, that’s Gary Gensler. So Gary Gensler is almost completely opposite to my point of view.

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 question, or at least the most relevant question to this meeting, is that Gary’s regulatory approach to blockchain and Cryptocurrency is almost the opposite of the right way.

I’m oversimplifying a bit, but it seems that the SEC’s question when regulating cryptocurrency is whether this is a useful Token? If it’s a useful Token, they seem to want to ban it. If it’s a useless Token, they seem not to care.

I tend to think we should reverse the process here, right? I am concerned about financialization. I am worried, frankly, that many things in the Crypto world are fundamentally false.

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

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

When I talk to fren who is still in the venture capital industry, the most exciting companies for them are doing real things in the communication field in the 21st century, to be precise, in 2024. These companies typically rely on efficient Token for things like verification. If we cannot make verification possible, we will make it very difficult to challenge the existing giants in this field.

Original Text Link