Jason’s prediction has two main parts:

1. A clear, pro‑crypto regulatory framework would emerge as a political issue by the 2024 U.S. general election.

   • On the law side, Congress had not passed a comprehensive, clear framework for crypto by Election Day (Nov 5, 2024). The House passed the FIT21 bill in May 2024, which would clarify SEC/CFTC jurisdiction over digital assets, but it stalled in the Senate and never became law in that Congress.(mayerbrown.com) The first major federal framework, the GENIUS Act on stablecoins, was only enacted in July 2025 under Trump, i.e., after the election.(en.wikipedia.org) So a formal, enacted “crypto framework” did not exist yet for voters to respond to in 2024.
   • On the politics side, crypto policy clearly did become a visible campaign issue for a minority of voters and elites. Industry‑ and crypto‑adjacent surveys (DCG/Harris, Gemini, Grayscale, Paradigm, etc.) consistently found that roughly 20% of some voter samples considered crypto a “major” or “significant” issue, and that many wanted candidates to talk more about regulation.(cryptopotato.com) A Paradigm poll in October 2024 found that 5% of voters were “single‑issue” crypto voters.(paradigm.xyz) Trump explicitly campaigned on ending the “war on crypto,” promised to fire SEC Chair Gary Gensler, and attracted significant crypto‑industry money via the Fairshake super PAC and other efforts; contemporaneous summaries describe crypto regulation as a wedge issue in the 2024 race.(en.wikipedia.org)
   • At the same time, mainstream issue polling and the televised debates show crypto was not a top‑tier concern for most voters. Large non‑industry polls list the economy, inflation, democracy, abortion, immigration, etc. as the dominant issues; crypto usually doesn’t appear on those lists.(today.yougov.com) The Harris–Trump debate in September 2024 did not mention crypto at all, and analysis in both crypto and general‑finance media argued this reflected how low it ranked for the broader electorate.(coindesk.com) One post‑hoc critique also points out that industry‑funded polls may overstate both usage and salience of crypto.(bettermarkets.org)
   • Net: crypto regulation clearly emerged as a recognizable campaign and wedge issue for a niche but non‑trivial slice of voters and donors, but not as a clear, enacted pro‑crypto regulatory framework understood by the general electorate. Whether that matches what Jason meant by a “crypto framework” is interpretive rather than factual.

2. Supporting crypto would be worth roughly 5 percentage points of the vote in that election.

   • The main quantitative support for a “5‑point” effect comes from the Paradigm polling that 5% of voters self‑describe as single‑issue crypto voters.(paradigm.xyz) Paradigm itself emphasized that 5% is larger than the 1–2 point margins typical in key swing states, implying that, in theory, a strongly pro‑crypto stance could swing close races. This is almost exactly Jason’s “worth probably five points” framing.
   • However, there is no solid evidence that pro‑crypto positions actually produced a ~5‑point shift in realized vote share:
     • Even crypto‑friendly coverage notes that a Paradigm‑commissioned poll found just 5% of likely voters considered crypto a key issue, underscoring how small this bloc is nationally.(coindesk.com)
     • Broader polls show crypto ranks near the bottom of issues, especially among men 18–29, where it came dead last among 28 tested issues.(blueprint-research.com)
     • Post‑election commentary argues that crypto money and PAC spending mattered more than any measurable “crypto voter” bloc; one analysis explicitly doubts that single‑issue crypto voters had a large electoral impact, suggesting industry cash did the heavy lifting.(dlnews.com)
     • No exit polls or rigorous academic studies attribute a ~5‑percentage‑point net swing in national or swing‑state margins specifically to candidates’ crypto stances, as opposed to the dominant issues (economy, democracy, abortion, immigration, etc.).(grokipedia.com)
   • Because the available data are either industry‑funded and hypothetical (“could swing,” “could decide”) or high‑level and non‑specific, we cannot confidently say that being pro‑crypto actually yielded ~5 extra points for any candidate in 2024.

Why this is scored “ambiguous”:

• There is credible evidence that crypto policy and regulatory debates did emerge as a visible, partisan wedge issue, especially in elite politics and among a notable minority of voters; in that narrow sense, part of Jason’s intuition was directionally right.(en.wikipedia.org)
• But a clear, enacted pro‑crypto regulatory framework did not exist by Election Day 2024, and the claim that supporting crypto was “worth probably five points” cannot be empirically validated: we only have suggestive polls, no robust measurement of an actual 5‑point vote effect.(mayerbrown.com)

Because one part of the prediction is partly borne out in a limited way (salience as an issue) while the stronger claims (a clear framework in place and a realized ~5‑point electoral payoff) are not clearly supported nor clearly disproven by the available evidence, the overall forecast cannot be cleanly classified as simply right or wrong. Hence, “ambiguous.”