Following El Salvador’s footsteps, several governments were seen trying to accommodate crypto into their system. Texas, a state in the United States of America is the latest to express interest in crypto. However, the residents of the state were seen pushing for crypto payments.
Just as the world was traversing into the digital world, digital asset payments were seen thriving. While the value of crypto surged, the demand for it followed suit. The crypto industry noticed a drastic growth from its nascent stage to its fully-fledged current rate of adoption. Trying to keep up with the trend and reap the benefits of the crypto-verse, several governments across the globe were seen adopting cryptocurrencies.
As per a recent poll reported by Newsweek, it was noted that an array of people from Texas were interested in bringing crypto into the region. In a survey with 9,700 voters over various states of the United States from 20 to 22 August in California and 20 to 24 August in nine other states. About 37% of the residents from Texas were noted voting to make crypto legal. However, 42% of the crowd wanted crypto-friendly legislation.
This could further mean that about 10 million of the existing 29 million population of Texas were seen favoring the adoption of crypto in the region.
Texas to go crypto-friendly?
Redfield & Wilton Strategies, a UK-based platform, carried out a survey in light of the state’s efforts to recognize cryptocurrencies. While some parts of the US still remain hostile towards the emergence of crypto, regions like Wyoming and Texas seem to be driving the crypto bandwagon.
Additionally, several politicians have started to express support for crypto, particularly during campaigns. While some of them have a genuine interest in bringing crypto into the system, a few others could be using it to lure voters. Louisa Idel, the head of insights at Redfield & Wilton spoke about the same and said,
“If a party wants to catch these receptive voters, it should act swiftly—not only to beat the other party to the punch but also to preempt legislation that would prove difficult to reverse if enacted.”