For 2020 candidates, Bitcoin donations are simply not worth the effort
No serious campaign needs to put forth the considerable effort required to accept Bitcoin contributions. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
Here’s what Fast Company has to say on the matter:
Fear aside, for the candidates not vying for Yang’s particular niche demographic, or even specifically for the younger vote, it’s a question of efficacy of fundraising. “Campaign fundraising is a volume business,” Weiner says. “Does the hassle exceed the benefit?” The resounding answer is, yes.
I worked on Missouri Republican Austin Petersen’s 2018 campaign for United States Senate, which accepted Bitcoin contributions. For Austin, it was a statement of principle: he believes in cryptocurrency, and it was important to him that he walked the walk by accepting it as equal with United States Dollars.
But, while we did receive Bitcoin donations, my memory was that it was a not significant amount — and that setting up our digital infrastructure to receive them was a hassle. I argued against it at the time, and with the benefit of experience, I would do so again.
There may come a day when cryptocurrency is a common way to donate to campaigns, but today is not that day. My instinct would be to let the payment processors (e.g., ActBlue & Anedot) lead the way on that front: when they offer Bitcoin support, you should start allowing people to donate that way, too.