Well trust is subjective, and with that, they could be that they are in crypto because they wanted to make a lot of money out of it, just like the majority of us. The thing is that they can hide their true intentions by saying this and that.

But I wouldn't go and believed everything they say. Or are they really here because they want it to be adopted. So just be careful with those politicians who might be hiding that guise. As again, as you have said, it could be part of their plan to get some votes from pro-crypto individuals.

Because this industry is rapidly developing and expanding. It would be foolish for politicians not to use this to their own advantage - drawing the attention of potential followers who might vote for them in the future (and, overall, in terms of public support).

Can put on a show of anything. But what lies deep within them? I mean, are they truly committed to bitcoin, or is it just for show? In reality, those who are genuinely committed don't shout about it in public; they quietly pursue their ideas.

I have doubts about the altruism of such intentions. After all, politicians have a very compelling motive, as you said, to secure the support of the electorate.

Well, let’s first try to recall a single instance where a politician actually kept their word. That right there is the answer to your question. Their words should always be met with skepticism, because they say only what the electorate wants to hear. These guys pursue their own selfish interests and do not act for the good of others.

There is a 99.9% chance they will disappoint you. At least, that’s how it is in my country.

Folk wisdom: listen to a politician, and do the exact opposite.

Politicians are not trusted in anything, not only with their enthusiasm on cryptocurrency and any others. They basically are always ready to make many promises but they mostly never act to complete and achieve what they promised during political propaganda.

You can think about them like between promises to citizens, their supporters and their political career, they will certainly prioritize their political career. Not all their promises are achievable by political and constitutional barriers but you know their priorities are never turning their promises to actions and achievements at all cost.

Easy. If you don't trust them, never fully trust them, you will not feel disappointed with them.

If a politician tells me Good morning, I hsve to check my time if it's really morning because they say things to just please you at that moment in order to get what they want from you which is your support and when they are elected into power, they do the opposite.

I cannot tell if they really love bitcoin and bought it or came to support it publicly because of their personal interest or not but with the way these government are going against privacy, it seems that they into bitcoin to kill the privacy we get in using it by making us use it in a centralized way and the government might take down all services offering privacy like mixers and decentralized exchanges in the future.

The more important thing here is to watch what Dey would do when they have the opportunity to support or oppose crypto related policies. They can say all the right things during campaign and behave differently when they are in office so I would not judge politician position on owning some bitcoin or posting about it online, they have a reason to pay attention because there is already a lot of political money around crypto.

Personally the consistency matters most to me, when they keep supporting clear policies even when bitcoin is unpopular that tells me more than just screenshot of their portfolio.

I don't trust a politician. While a few of the things they say or do may be true, it's hard to tell which ones are those.

Regardless, however, whether what they're saying in favor of Bitcoin is mere pretense or not, it gives an advantage to Bitcoin. A politician publicly making pro-Bitcoin pronouncements, despite not truly liking or supporting it, is more or less bound to conform with it, lest it would only cause a backlash.

In the end, all this doesn't truly matter. Bitcoin doesn't need politicians.

Are you trying to say none of the politicians who's publicly thrown their support for cryptocurrency did that out of their conviction and genuine decision to become pro-crypto for the rest of their life? I know that majority of them try to seek public support by engaging in things they know are of huge interest to the public just to gain popularity and to be accepted but there are few who after getting elected will still not change their stance in supporting cryptocurrency.

First I hope you changed the title of the thread about Crypto on the Bitcoin discussion board, which is generally understood differently from the point of view of people on the forum, even though you only included Bitcoin in your description, but I think it's just you as an example as the appeal of this discussion.

Both politicians rely on Bitcoin and its derivatives as a tool for their popularity in this modern era, to be honest it is a very reasonable way because he has an interest in increasing his electability amid the massive adoption of this industry that is the hope of many people as one of the more advanced digitization follow-ups.

To believe it or not, this has to be seen from what he does and what he talks about, the context will be different when someone is just an expert in a certain industry, so I think you need to judge objectively to sort this out.

For me politicians who are elected and have spoken about Bitcoin, there is little hope that they can keep their promises, because it is clear that they are a good lip service at campaign events, we must know that the character of each politician is almost the same, but even though we must continue to encourage hope for blockchain or bitcoin adoption to remain a leadership concern, why is that? because basically we can't do anything.

Someone who once promised us just released his family's Memecoin and took advantage of us.

One thing that I have noticed about politicians when they get to power, most of them will fulfill their promises, but better standards of living and good economy is bigger than their promises.

An example is a politician that promised what you said, he made his stake or country crypto friendly, but at the end the standard of living in the country is not good.

The worst is that most time, people do not know who will be the right candidate. Even there may not be the right candidate among the people that are contesting.

Promising to allow bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies does not mean the economy or standard of living will be good, there are other things that should be considered to make that possible.

Also promising crypto to be allowed does not mean people will like other things that he will do.