Winklevoss twins slam Biden for ‘anti-crypto’ policies, support Trump for ‘choosing crypto’
Gemini co-founders Tyler Winklevoss and Cameron Winklevoss support former U.S. President Donald Trump because he is “the pick for Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and business.” I said I would vote for him in February.
The Winklevoss twins also announced that they each donated $1 million in Bitcoin to Trump’s presidential campaign. The former president promised at a recent political rally to “end Biden’s war on cryptocurrencies” and said he had no intention of stopping people from using Bitcoin and other digital assets.
Famous entrepreneurs known for their initial investments in Bitcoin and later as influential figures in the cryptocurrency industry expressed their support for Trump on social media on June 20, expressing their dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden and his administration’s hostile policies toward North Korea. emphasized. Cryptocurrency industry.
The public support and significant financial contribution to the Trump campaign marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over cryptocurrency regulation in the United States. Their support highlights deep divisions within the U.S. political landscape regarding the best path for digital assets and regulatory oversight.
Others in the industry, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, expressed similar sentiments and urged the cryptocurrency community to vote out politicians who support anti-crypto policies.
Allegations of government overreach
In a series of tweets, Tyler Winklevoss criticized the Biden administration for what he described as a deliberate campaign against the cryptocurrency industry. He accused the administration of using federal agencies to stifle innovation and harass cryptocurrency companies.
According to Winklevoss:
“The Biden administration has publicly declared war on cryptocurrencies. “The current government’s actions are nothing more than an unprecedented abuse of power wielded entirely for distorted political gain.”
Tyler accused the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) of putting pressure on banks to avoid doing business with cryptocurrency companies.
He described the effort as a continuation of “Operation Choke Point,” a controversial initiative launched during the Obama administration that he claimed was revived and strengthened under Biden.
SEC’s role in regulation
Winklevoss also criticized the SEC and its enforcement approach to the industry. He argued that the regulator’s main role is to establish new rules for the industry. He said:
“The SEC has not written a single set of rules for the cryptocurrency industry to help participants understand how to navigate the regulatory environment.”
He also argued that the lack of clear guidelines allows the SEC to arbitrarily sue cryptocurrency projects and companies. He described this as a tactic to “make compliance impossible and then sue everyone who doesn’t comply.”
Winklevoss also criticized the application of the Howey Test, which determines whether a transaction qualifies as an investment contract. The SEC frequently cited this test in its arguments and used it to defend its position that most cryptocurrency tokens are securities.
Winklevoss wrote:
“By not writing new rules for cryptocurrencies, the SEC is allowing existing rules to build on a 1946 Supreme Court decision regarding Florida’s citrus groves, issued before most homes had telephones and 50 years before the advent of commercial telephones. Together, you can speak dishonestly. Internet — it is fit for purpose. It’s not like that.
He explained the impracticality of the Howey test in the context of modern digital assets by explaining that classifying crypto assets like Ethereum as securities would severely limit their usefulness.
According to Winklevoss:
“If ether were a security and was an open question until 48 hours ago, sending ether from your smartphone to your friend’s smartphone would be a violation of securities laws. why? Because only broker-dealers can transfer securities.”
He added that such a classification would “undermine its utility” and seriously hamper the financial system’s ability to innovate.
