Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 357 posts

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#121

Post by drharby »

chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

> Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulated. I'm not sure I entirely understand if they mean that Bitcoin itself must be regulated or just that the SEC needs to see that the major exchanges are regulated.

I'd challenge ANY government to regulate cold, hard, cash

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#122

Post by thinkloop »

kolinko wrote: post #109
thinkloop wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next step seems to be to create a regulated market - anyone know what that means, or whether there is something inherent to Bitcoin that doesn't allow it? Coinbase has KYC, banking relationships and tax integration, I'm sure that can be extended to an exchange.

You'd need to force all the unregulated exchanges to close down, and block ability to run smart contracts or any other software on it. And do it in all the major jurisdictions?

That doesn't sound right. The etf is pinned to a single exchange (which they complained wasn't liquid enough) and there are thousands of informal unregulated gold markets all around the world.

> and block ability to run smart contracts or any other software on it.

How do you think smart contacts play a role?

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#123

Post by brianpgordon »

chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

Frame this and put it on your wall-

https://i.imgur.com/tct42F0.png

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#124

Post by danielweber »

Analemma_ wrote: post #100
slg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. That is a loss of 25% of its value. This announcement does nothing to hurt the utility of Bitcoin or its application as a medium of exchange. That drop certainly seems like a speculative investment bubble popping.

Yup. Any "currency" that can plummet in value by 25% because of a minor SEC ruling is not ready to be a store of value.

Eehhh, I've been skeptical of Bitcoin in the past because of its volatility, but this is very unusual. It's been rather stable on a week-to-week basis for a long time.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#125

Post by dnautics »

astrange wrote: post #94
stOneskull wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gold is a precious metal. bitcoin is a text file.

Bitcoin is a share of a conversion from electricity to waste heat.

gold is a share of a conversion of energy to dug up earth, and sometimes nasty mercury tailings.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#127

Post by ericjang »

iaw wrote: post #117
chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

When the Winklevoss twins became aware of BTC (or at least shortly after they started talking about it publicly), some classic market manipulation ploys began appearing. It could be coincidental, but I've always been suspicious that the Winklevoss twins were the first people of a mind and with the capital to start gaming the BTC market as one can any other financial institution. The Winklevii are not people I'd like…

I almost read that as Wink-evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#128

Post by noja »

iaw wrote: post #117
chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

When the Winklevoss twins became aware of BTC (or at least shortly after they started talking about it publicly), some classic market manipulation ploys began appearing. It could be coincidental, but I've always been suspicious that the Winklevoss twins were the first people of a mind and with the capital to start gaming the BTC market as one can any other financial institution. The Winklevii are not people I'd like…

Can you go into more detail on what kinds of market manipulation ploys exist?

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#129

Post by Analemma_ »

danielweber wrote: post #124
Analemma_ wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Any "currency" that can plummet in value by 25% because of a minor SEC ruling is not ready to be a store of value.

Eehhh, I've been skeptical of Bitcoin in the past because of its volatility, but this is very unusual. It's been rather stable on a week-to-week basis for a long time.

The SEC declining to approve some investment vehicle is not unusual at all. Compare that to the USD, where nothing short of global nuclear war is going to cause a 10-minute 25% swing.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#130

Post by bb88 »

thinkloop wrote: post #106
chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

The next step seems to be to create a regulated market - anyone know what that means, or whether there is something inherent to Bitcoin that doesn't allow it? Coinbase has KYC, banking relationships and tax integration, I'm sure that can be extended to an exchange.

I would think regulated means the following: (Note that I don't believe this needs to be done by a government. It could be private.)

1. A governing body that can create rules and regulation for the market.

2. An enforcement body that can enact penalties for rule violations.

The problem I think is not so much the governing agency, it's the enforcement for rule violators. It's one thing to punish Mt. Gox for violating the exchange terms, but what if it's some shady anonymous bitcoin exchange broker in China?

Post reply on HN