Taking donation cannot guarantee anything if you mean towards crypto adoption, but for sure those donators would get a favor if their candidate supported will win. We see how many times ripple got bothered by many controversy and face many trials so maybe what they do is somehow to stop this cases under since maybe Harris camp would think about that they owe one from ripple founder when campaign periods happen then maybe save their asses out of those controversies.

But at least they see how useful crypto is by using on those transactions and maybe they can see it as currency with those matter and not only a risky investment option to take or use by people.

Ripple will be expecting something back, but that does not mean that they must get something back for their support.


If the politician in question is someone who feels like they must reward everyone who supported them in securing a political position, then it is possible that the crypto donations they've received in altcoins can actually influence them into making decisions that will favor the coins that they received over Bitcoin, but if it's a politician that cares less for rewarding people who have supported him directly or, or rather, reward them in other ways, then we shouldn't expect any form of crypto donation to have an effect on them and the decision they plan to make.

The fact that Kamala’s camp accepted such a huge donation means it's pretty much a given - whether she denies any influence or not. It feels like a behind-the-scenes deal, and honestly, those of us who’ve been around long enough can see right through it, right?

Or put it this way: if they don’t plan on giving anything back to crypto devs, they shouldn’t accept crypto donations, simple as that. But since they accepted $10 million -and, let’s be real, this isn’t even the first time Ripple donated, you know Ripple’s banking on getting some help with their SEC troubles. If Kamala wins, she could just appoint a new SEC chairman, one who’s more favorable to them. And think about it: that $10 million is pocket change if Ripple wins. If the news came out, XRP will probably skyrocket. If XRP hits even $1, the devs are gonna make way more than that donation, no doubt.

Well it think it's better to use the statement; " if she gets elected as president then she may likely return the favour" this is because she is actually not obligated in any way to return their favour at all costs. Anyways I believe all these are just speculations since chances have it that she may or may not. However I really don't think that these donations will make altcoins progress better than bitcoin.

I think the worst that could probably happen is that stricter regulations may be put in place probably against decentralisation however it's not actually guaranteed that any of these will happen. Last time I checked, US citizens are core users of bitcoin and I think that implies that there are a majority of decentralisation enthusiasts there too.

To the date, I have never seen any alt surpassing the Bitcoin in terms of popularity, pricing, volume and increasing caps.

Altcoins are just profound ways to transfer huge sums of money without getting charged for it in terms of taxations unless and until you get them converted to fiat and withdraw in a bank.

The trade that is outplayed in OP, is just another example of using alts for money exchange to avoid any forthcoming actions against Ripple. Many things goes into it, but at the end lets say Bitcoin cant be beaten.

I think this poses risks of conflicts of interest and could influence their regulatory decisions in favor of altcoins, to the detriment of Bitcoin. This raises ethical concerns about the impartiality and integrity of political decision-making.

Yeah, however, it all depends on the year and the campaign.
Only time will tell how it may affect the BTC itself, but I wouldn't say that much.
After all, we are talking about politicians - they can say anything and do all in reverse 

I don't think there's anything she can do for them, not legally at least. The case is too in the open for her to do anything illegal. She is not the one in charge of the case; it's the SEC, and she can't influence that.


There is no decision on regulations that would favour altcoins over bitcoin. They can only make regulations that might favour that particular coin, which would favour bitcoin. There is no way you can be against Bitcoin and be for other crypto projects. It just shows you're a greedy fraud who just wants to make money, and politicians wouldn't want to be seen that way, even if they are that.
All they can do is make favourable laws for crypto which also favours bitcoin.

I don't really think all these donating and donations will have any impact whatsoever although that's from my won perspective and the reason why is because most of all these are just political strategies just like the way Bitcoin was paraded in Argentina by one of the candidate for their past Presidential elections.