I don't accept anything via AI generation if it doesn't have a direct source, since AI can easily be mistaken or manipulated. Taken on face value though, it is worth noting that question does combine invested or used and yet is a much lower figure than others claimed for "currently own".
What difference does that make?
Yes, that is the self-selected survey (not study) I mentioned, commissioned and funded by organisations with a vested interest in promoting crypto.
And what makes you think security.org is "commissioned and funded by organizations with a vested interest in promoting crypto"?
Anyway, I asked you if you wanted more sources. In fact if you want, I'll let you pick.
Although I have a feeling I could give you a 1,000 credible sources as you would wave them all away too.
Quite possibly, but you have no basis to claim your other sources (some of which aren't even clear)would be any better
And you have no basis for dismissing them out of hand other than that doing so supports your claim. Or that you seem to think it does anyway.
, so blindly accepting the 20%-40% while entirely dismissing the 7% is unjustified.
I didn't "entirely dismiss" anything. I explained why they may be under-reporting.
You know, usually when somebody has to use this much hyperbole it's a sign that they don't have a whole bunch of conviction in what they're saying, but wants to come across as if they do.
Maybe you should stop and think about why you need to do that.
The true answer is that we have no idea,
Okie dokie then, would it make you feel better if we said, " Some voters" and left it at that?
If you don't think that this issue is going to have a significant impact on the election I don't even know why you're bothering posting in this thread.
And I'm completely baffled by how upset you seem to be over the whole issue.
Lose some money in the market?
and that it would take much more detailed independent research to establish any kind of reliable figures.
Again: If it makes you feel better, let's just say 'some' and leave it at that.
Or if that doesn't do it for you, let's say it's one pimply faced millennial living in his mother's basement whose entire $240 net worth is tied up in Bitcoin, and from there we can discuss how we think he's going to vote and why.
Not anyone, only those who know how to take advantage of such a market, and most of that advantage would be by selling their crypto high to less informed people who would in turn loose out.
Regardless: literally anybody who owns crypto is going to benefit from a bull market. Period.
If you really think that there are people out there who own crypto who are hoping it will fail, you're going to have to explain that line of thinking.
You were making it out to be significant in people's voting decisions,
Which it absolutely is and will be in many people's decisions.
Oh wait: I mean in that one pimply faced millennial's decision.
(Phew)
and implied that people who own crypto will and/or should vote Trump,
No, I implied that they might be inclined to. And I explained why.
(More hyperbole)
regardless of their party affiliation.
I suggested that that could happen, and I also explained why there too.
Actually, you didn't explain it at all,
Sure did. Not sure how you missed it.
you just asserted it. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not convinced the difference is going to be especially significant, especially among the more moderate "lean" voters for whom this could influence their decision.
No, but I don't think it's anything like as clear cut as you imagine.
Cool! You can see into my imagination now! What are some of your other superpowers (I mean aside from missing the point)?
While Trump talks big about the topic (at least, to audiences he imagines will like it) and seeks to profit from the field himself, who knows what he secondary presidency would actually bring,
We're talking about politics so it isn't about what people know, it's about what people believe and what people expect.
Again: when he was elected in 2016 crypto went on an insane or run. Regardless of whether or not those two facts are related, most people in the crypto space are convinced that they are and are convinced that the same thing will happen if he's elected again.
That's the point.
in general economics and crypto in general. And whoever is in the Oval Office for the next four years isn't necessarily going to have a massive impact on the direction of travel of government approaches to crypto around the world (or even much in the US).
See my last comment.
Yes, but intentionally or not, your OP comes across as implying that it could (and should) be a significant factor for up to 40% of voters.
Yup, and as far as I can see you haven't said anything that convincingly disputes that.
I'm not saying it is insignificant, but I am saying that it is nothing like as significant as your OP suggests and nothing like as clear cut as presidential vote in the US.
It looks to me like you're going by your impression of what I said rather than what I actually said.
And like I suggested above, It seems pretty clear to me that your impressions are being influenced largely by emotion, for some reason.
I'm not willing to buy into that, it's too much work trying to have a constructive conversation with somebody when they're like that.
On the other hand if you would like to discuss the OP at face value, that would be great.
