In the run-up to the U.S. presidential vote, Donald Trump recognized the importance of the Bitcoin and crypto vote, unlike Kamala Harris, and took steps to secure it.
Trump Wants Crypto to Grow and Develop in the U.S.
In the run-up to the U.S. presidential vote, Donald Trump, unlike his rival Kamala Harris, understood the importance of the Bitcoin (BTC) and crypto vote. This understanding, according to Corbin Fraser, CEO of Bitcoin.com, prompted Trump to take steps to secure a vote which ultimately helped him defeat Harris.
Fraser also argued that Trump did more to prove he deserved the crypto vote than the other two presidential hopefuls. To support this assertion, the Bitcoin.com CEO points to the launch of the memecoin bearing his name $TRUMP, his non-fungible token (NFT) collections, and his expansion of discussion from a Bitcoin treasury to a digital assets treasury. According to Fraser, these steps show that Trump is eager to see crypto grow and develop in the U.S.
On concerns over Trump’s perceived influence on the crypto market, Fraser said while these are completely justified, he also sees having the 47th U.S. president talking about BTC and crypto as a win for the community.
Meanwhile, when asked for his take on the so-called Operation Chokepoint 2.0, the CEO revealed that Bitcoin.com itself has been a victim of this secretive but perhaps illegal operation. Not only did the operation make it impossible for the company to launch new products, but Bitcoin.com had problems getting financial institutions to accept it as a client.
With respect to the treatment of Bitcoin.com founder Roger Ver by the U.S. government, Fraser said the case exposed some of the questionable steps taken by officials to get their man. However, Fraser, who is helping to spearhead a campaign to get Ver pardoned, noted that more and more influential people, including Jeffrey Tucker and even Elon Musk, have either sympathized or joined the movement campaigning for his freedom.
In his other responses to questions from Bitcoin.com News, Fraser also touched on the holding company’s journey over the years and how it has managed to stay afloat. He also gave his thoughts on what the Trump administration can do to reassure crypto entrepreneurs that regulatory agencies will not go after law-abiding companies. Below are Fraser’s answers to some of the questions sent to him.
Bitcoin.com News (BCN): As the U.S. presidential election approached, some crypto critics believed the Biden administration’s stance on digital assets wouldn’t resonate with voters. Others mocked Donald Trump’s enthusiastic support for Bitcoin and the broader industry. In hindsight, it’s clear that players from crypto and related industries played a crucial role in Trump’s decisive victory. In your view, do you foresee any future U.S. administration targeting crypto as the Biden administration has after Trump is gone or both parties now understand that crypto is a no go area?
Corbin Fraser (CF): This first question relates to your view on whether you foresee any U.S. administration targeting crypto as the Biden administration has after Trump is gone. Or do both parties now understand that crypto is a no-go area?
I think there are a few things to consider. One, this election clearly showed there is a bitcoin crypto vote, and Kamala failed to tap into that. Trump completely did, and RFK completely did. So, I think more politicians are going to try to drum up the crypto vote.
That being said, I think we’ve also seen that Trump has given a bit of a pass for crypto, having launched the meme coin, his NFTs, his wide support for bitcoin and crypto, and expanding the discussion from a BTC treasury to a digital assets treasury, mentioning other assets including perhaps Solana and XRP. It’s very clear that he’s providing a more open opportunity for crypto to grow and develop out of the U.S. I think he wants to attract that mindshare from other countries and bring it back to U.S. soil.
So, I think there will be broader discussions. However, the potential here is that if, over the next four years, this wide-open, anything-goes vibe results in another Black Swan event like FTX or Luna, then this could whip back in the future. But I think we’ve got a minimum of 4 to 8 years of bullish, supportive trajectory from governments. And yeah, I think this will resonate beyond just the U.S. I think you’ll see more countries with different politicians borrowing some ideology, opening up opportunities in their countries, and welcoming more crypto development in different regions.
BCN: Some crypto proponents worry about Trump’s significant influence on the crypto market. To demonstrate the extent of his influence, critics point to how Trump’s announcement of key appointments in his incoming government helped BTC to a then all-time high. Others predicted his Jan. 20 inauguration would spark another rally.
Do you agree that Trump has an unusual influence over not just BTC but the entire crypto market? If so, what are risks associated with one individual wielding such significant influence?
CF:I think we can all look at the appointments in Trump’s cabinet, given that the majority are crypto-friendly. I think there’s a lot less pessimism towards the government by some in the crypto community. Anything the government does is going to be, you know, the wrong thing. Or maybe some people are speaking more towards it being anti-crypto because crypto is supposed to be the alternative take. It doesn’t need government, it doesn’t need the approval of Trump, it doesn’t need the approval of anyone. But I think it’s great that we have a cabinet and a U.S. administration that’s saying the past four years with Biden and Kamala have been terrible.
Now that all of the crypto companies have begun leaving, banks have been treated poorly, founders have been treated poorly, and founders have been debanked. This is like the same lawfare that attacked Trump and other businesspeople, causing many crypto companies to leave the U.S., shut down, or terminate their business earlier than they would have if the government had been more welcoming. They didn’t have to spend so much on lawyers, compliance, and all the chaos.
So, I think the overall sentiment needs to shift to one that’s like, yes, a U.S. administration that supports Bitcoin could be a risk to your future holdings if they hold a huge amount of Treasury. If the U.S. ever decides to sell, or if four years from now, some new person gets voted in and they hate crypto and want to dump it on day one, and they put out an executive order, sure, that could hurt crypto. But these are all temporary blips in the overall picture. I think the general idea here is that we have some of the biggest megaphones on the planet talking about hard money, Bitcoin, and crypto. It’s an opportunity for more people to be introduced to it, whether through their traditional banking institutions that seem excited at the opportunity to offer these new commodities to their users or getting people to try it out through self-custody, decentralized finance (defi), or actually using their Bitcoin.
BCN: Trump’s victory meanwhile revived hopes that the U.S. government will finally dispense with its so-called Operation Choke Point 2.0. The recent release on FDIC unredacted letters all but confirmed that what most people in the industry knew, U.S. regulators were collaborating to exclude crypto firms from the banking system. As someone leading an organization operating in the crypto sector, what is your first hand experience (if any) of how this secretive operation impacts the industry?
CF: Yeah. The debanking, the choke 2.0. I mean, it’s impacted Bitcoin.com. It’s impacted our founder, Roger Ver. You know, the swamp and Elizabeth Warren’s goons and the anti-crypto goons out of the U.S. have done everything they possibly can to make interacting with the U.S. market as crypto companies and offshore companies nearly impossible. Very difficult to do. And I think we’re extremely optimistic that a Trump presidency is going to be pro-business, pro-crypto, pro-Bitcoin. And yeah, we’re very excited.
Some examples of past issues we’ve seen are, you know, during the—I mean, these are all just, I would say, more like anecdotes. We don’t have freedom of information requests specific to any individual attacks; Bitcoin.com does have a warrant canary. You can visit it at Bitcoin.com. You know, you’ll see it still there for a reason, right? But we have had products that we’ve been working on, that we’ve spent time, money, and effort on, that have had to be shelved, retired, and ice-boxed as a result of sentiment within the U.S. Now, that sentiment in the U.S. is what’s largely impacted by the choke 2.0. For instance, we had a very early Bitcoin debit card in the works back in 2020/21, and we had one in 2022. All of these products that we had in development were ultimately vetoed and shut down by the banks in the United States when Bitcoin.com went to get all of its licensing and approvals and make sure that the card issuers and the compliance and legal teams at these banks were happy.
We would be met with blockade after blockade, lawyer approval, and compliance approval. There was a lot of breathing through teeth. It was very clear that the banks were extremely uncomfortable offering products and services to a company named Bitcoin.com. They even went so far as to say, “We might be able to help you guys do a Bitcoin.com card, but we won’t be able to let you put your name on the card.” We said, “Can you explain a little bit more in detail?” The bank doesn’t feel comfortable putting Bitcoin.com on a card, but that’s our company name, guys. The bank responded, saying its legal and compliance team had reviewed this and felt that the risk of calling it a Bitcoin.com card was perhaps too high. The application would be denied on this, and this went on for months, going through different banks, trying to charm bankers and executives at banks. None of them wanted to stick their neck out because they knew that choke 2.0 was out there, that they were being told behind closed doors and by this department run by Elizabeth Warren, that crypto is toxic waste.
Now, we have managed to make some strides in our banking relationships. Things have gotten better, but for sure we have had impacts. So, I guess you could say we were debanked before it was cool to be debanked. But yeah, I would say that the secretive discussions around these things that banks and the government do are extremely anti-democratic and extremely anti-free market. This is the stuff you would picture in an Ayn Rand book. These are like evil villain plots to prevent people from building new economic value. It’s really sad to see, and I’m extremely excited to see that Trump has kicked down the doors and that we’ve got guys like Andreessen shining the light on all of this chaos. You know, he was recently on Joe Rogan talking about debanking. So yeah, this is great. People are talking about this. Things are changing. Banks are not only being welcomed into the crypto fold, they’re applying for permissions to offer ETFs, permissions to offer storage of crypto. So yeah, we’re in a golden era of Bitcoin, largely thanks to Trump and his administration.
BCN: John Deaton, a former U.S. special assistant attorney, has stepped forward to lead an investigation into Operation Chokepoint 2.0. In a recent post on X, Deaton contended that many people underestimate the significance of Operation Chokepoint 2.0, aiming to expose how unelected government employees are utilizing it as a direct assault on American free market capitalism principles. What is your opinion on this assertion by Deaton?
CF: I fully agree with John on this. There is an extreme need to evaluate and understand this whole practice. Anyone who used these tactics and profited from them, whether through commercial means or by creating a permanent salary and existence through corrupt tribunals, should be held accountable. I would personally love to see them brought to Congress to fully understand this. I want to see people raked over the coals, and I think there should even be prosecutions.
When you consider the billions of dollars spent as a result of these people playing games, it’s clear that their team tried to keep crypto and bitcoin off U.S. soil. This area was growing, and nobody voted for this. They built their behind-the-scenes, not-quite-laws, but unwritten rules and manipulation tactics that prevented banks and companies from accessing the market, making it extremely expensive and nearly impossible to navigate. This further entrenched early folks who managed to beat the choke 2.0 but also stifled any future innovation. So yes, I think full disclosure from the government, banks, and people involved is necessary. We need to shine a light on it.
Let’s talk about it, understand it, and hold those pushing it accountable. This may mean getting people out of the government and certain industries who were involved because they are clearly corrupted. The worry and fear most people have is that these individuals won’t be held accountable and will just get new jobs at new banks and be fine. If this were any other industry, like construction, and someone changed the makeup of the cement, making it weaker and causing a building to collapse, those people would likely be held accountable for their actions. People want to see more bankers and executives treated with the same strong arm that everyone else would be treated within any other industry. This is an opportunity for the Trump administration to show that they will not stand for corruption in this area.
BCN: Now, as someone directly involved in the campaign to support Bitcoin.com founder Roger Ver, a freedom advocate, do his supporters see his arrest — nearly a decade after the alleged crime — and the U.S. government’s extensive efforts to build a case against him as part of Operation Chokepoint 2.0?
CF: Well, you only have to look at some of the details of this case to understand that it’s completely botched. The government and the swamp have clearly been after Roger for years. All of this predates his ownership and involvement in Bitcoin.com. But when you, as an adult and a free-thinking American, decide to renounce your citizenship and give up your passport, it upsets people. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world, maybe one of two, that has global taxation. So if you’re no longer actively contributing to the U.S., don’t live there, don’t have businesses, and want to cut complete ties and live somewhere else, you’re not free to do so.
You still have to pay taxes to the U.S. government. It’s a really strange system. So you’ve got brain drain where people are saying, “Okay, all around me, banks don’t want to touch crypto, the government doesn’t want to touch crypto,” and then you’ve got a crypto pioneer like Roger Ver saying, “In order for me to continue to spread the gospel of Bitcoin and crypto, I’m going to have to do that elsewhere.” It’s clear they didn’t like that. It makes me think that the same people protecting the interests of the U.S. against crypto adoption saw Roger as a threat. And what do you do when you see a threat? You try to take him off the chessboard, right? You deal with him.
So they do everything they possibly can. They not only tried but actually did break attorney-client privilege by taking private communications between an attorney and client. This set a completely new precedent for the U.S., where you, as an American, can’t talk to your attorney in confidence. But what’s funny is when they did that, they found that Roger tried to follow everything by the book. There are emails and complete documentation showing he wanted to do everything right because he knew they might come after him due to his distrust of the government’s view on crypto and his work onboarding millions of people to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
They came after him for silly things, like how much he owes on his exit tax based on his Bitcoin holdings. Simulating a liquidation event and trying to determine how much your Bitcoin was worth when you have a huge amount of the supply and would crash the entire market is very hard to do. The fact that they refuse to give him a number—his tax attorneys and legal attorneys have all asked, “Just give us a number, how much does he owe?”—but they have never provided that. These are the same people looking for their trophy. Roger is an influential person and would be a trophy kill for some bureaucrat in the U.S.
But I’m extremely confident that Trump and his pro-crypto administration can see that Roger is one of the latest victims in this lawfare against innovators. Roger has been debanked for years due to Choke Point 2.0. We’re optimistic that Roger will become free. Also, you should know that we just broke 28,000 signatures on Free Roger Now Campaign website. More and more people have come out in support, including Brett Weinstein, Michael Malice, Jeffrey Tucker, Tucker Carlson, and Charlie Kirk—huge names. It seems like perhaps even Elon Musk. He recently tweeted that he was going to look into it specifically. So I think there’s clearly discussion about Roger being done dirty. I’ve known Roger personally for eight years. Prior to knowing him, I followed his story. The guy cares more about people and about the freedom that hard money provides from an economic freedom standpoint—being self-sovereign, being in control of your money, not being censored by banks, and keeping your free speech. Roger is the most American guy I know. He’s probably the most free American. He’s a red-blooded American, but he just doesn’t have the passport anymore. So yeah, I’m optimistic he’s going to be alright. Roger is a good man.
BCN: What recommendations do you have for the incoming Trump administration to help it reassure the crypto industry that U.S. government agencies will not continue to block or stifle law-abiding companies?
CF: The biggest piece of advice I can share is to build simple, easy-to-understand rules and regulations around Bitcoin and crypto. If this becomes a 10,000-page tax code document that every new crypto company needs to hire a team of lawyers to understand, it’s not going to work. It has to be clean and simple. I would make sure that there are contingencies in place to support new entrants into the market. Often, regulation can be used as a weapon to protect the old guard. They may have the financial means to lobby the government to create rules that protect their moat. But if the United States is going to be a Bitcoin and crypto innovation hub, it needs to support the little guys. That means fresh graduates with new ideas need the freedom to build something great. If they’re caught up trying to raise funds to pay off lawyers to stay out of jail, they’ll build something else in an industry with less friction.
Create low-friction requirements for entrepreneurs, builders, protocols, self-custody wallets, and anything new in this space. Leave enough room for easy, clear, simple regulation. It would also be interesting to see the government highlighting these builders, similar to how we highlight greats in sports and science. The government should support and highlight great entrepreneurs in the Bitcoin and crypto space. That doesn’t mean the government needs to pay them, but if they’re inviting people to the White House, let’s start inviting the new guys. It doesn’t always have to be NBA teams; let’s get the guys who build a new app that reaches a million or 10 million new users. Let’s see them put their money where their mouth is.
BCN: As one of the pioneering cryptocurrency companies, Bitcoin.com has weathered numerous market fluctuations, from bull runs to crashes that toppled once-promising firms. How has Bitcoin.com managed to endure while others faltered? What should our audience expect from Bitcoin.com in 2025 going forward?
CF: I think one of the greatest things Bitcoin.com did in 2017 was build a self-custodial wallet app. Keeping everything self-custody was likely the key factor that prevented any potential issues. If we had introduced centralization, there would have been the risk of high friction, extreme amounts of compliance, and inevitable chaos. When you look at the entire space, companies like FTX might have avoided temptation if everything had been built in a fully self-custodial manner. Perhaps, if they had taken a completely decentralized-first approach, they might still be around. There are some great trading products out there that are pursuing a self-custody-first angle.
But it’s funny to see that companies like FTX were mercenary—they didn’t care about Bitcoin or crypto; they were just there to make money. The difference between a company like that and Bitcoin.com is that our founder instilled a belief system in this company and in everyone we hire. We have an opportunity with Bitcoin and cryptocurrency to change the world, to help people become more economically free and independent. They can hold their funds and are not constrained by the rules or changes made by any one government.
For us, it’s been about focusing on first principles related to caring about Bitcoin, caring about our users, and ensuring they have a great onboarding experience. We integrate things that are tried and tested. That may mean we’re not always the first to support the most hyped technology that ultimately gets beaten up by the market. We aim to adopt new tech, like non-fungible tokens (NFTs), meme coins, DeFi, and smart contract staking, once we’re confident in them. We’ve avoided the allure of hypothesizing people’s money because it doesn’t fit with our company ethos. This belief system, instilled in us by our founder Roger Ver, is something I try to emulate. I bang that drum every day—self-custody is the greatest thing in the world. There may be some friction points, but you don’t have to worry about bureaucrats doing something reckless with your crypto.
