The primary presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on September 10 didn’t function any dialogue of cryptocurrencies or Bitcoin, regardless of a dialogue of the financial system, with the candidates focusing as a substitute on conventional themes equivalent to international coverage, immigration, and abortion rights.
Earlier than the controversy, Trump had a slight lead within the prediction market. On crypto-based PolyMarket, Trump's odds had been 53% and Harris's had been 46%. However after the controversy, PolyMarket's odds had been tied at 49% every for each candidates, a distinction of seven factors. On the time of writing, $865,183,218 had been wager on the election end result. On PredictIt, a non-crypto market out there within the US, the change was extra pronounced, with Harris' odds rising to 56% and Trump's falling to 47% after the controversy. Harris additionally has a slight lead on conventional betting websites.
PolyMarket's market, which predicted the end result of the controversy, supplied slightly below $1 million in bets giving Harris a 98% likelihood of profitable the controversy.
The end result of the controversy seems to have had a adverse affect on Bitcoin's value. After the controversy, Bitcoin's worth dropped by about 3%, dropping from about $58,000 to $56,600. It has since recovered to over $57,000 on the time of writing. This drop coincides with a drop in Trump's odds in prediction markets.
Notably, Bitcoin had already skilled a major 8% drop on September 6, the identical day Trump held the biggest lead on PolyMarket and the closest odds on PredictIt, indicating that Bitcoin value actions usually are not completely correlated with Trump's probabilities of profitable the controversy.
Though cryptocurrencies weren’t immediately mentioned throughout the debate, market reactions point out that traders and merchants are intently watching how the election unfolds and its potential affect on the crypto business. Whereas Trump has voiced his help for the crypto sector, Harris has but to make clear her stance on digital belongings, excluding them from coverage paperwork.
