I selled my BTC in these days but I didn't know this topic.
Always charts of BTC is too reactive so I think it's not for investment...
SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
151–160 of 357 posts
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
So yeah, it looks like this ruling will prevent any commodity linked ETF from being approved without surveillance on a regulated exchange. So that's not likely not gonna happen ever. The ruling kills any other bitcoin/virtual asset ETF from getting approved as well.
without surveillance on a regulated exchange So we're going to have competition in exchanges, a free market of them with various rules/surveillance levels? Neat!
Competition between exchanges based on rules (e.g. paying liquidity takers versus makers) and surveillance (e.g pits versus dark pools or tape delays) has existed for a long time (think: American Stock Exchange versus NYSE versus NASDAQ) [1]. It sped up after the SEC passed Reg ATS [2].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_trading_system
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#153So what are the expected benefits of a bitcoin ETF? Many of the traditional benefits of ETFs are obsolete when you can just buy and hold an equivalent amount of bitcoin The biggest benefit I can think of is that some institutional investors have restrictions on the types of securities that they can buy. Someone could solve this by creating a company to buy lots of bitcoin, and then having an IPO to list that company…
I can imagine that custody was considered to be a good selling point. If you can get exposure to BTC through an ETF without having to secure your own BTC, there's significant value there. I.e., centralize security in HoldCo, sell shares in HoldCo to give safe access, share security expense and take a small piece off the top for your troubles.
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#154Bitcoin 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…
> some classic market manipulation ploys began appearing.
Citation? Not disagreeing - I have no knowledge either way, but this is about as useless a statement as one can imagine without backup.
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#155Bitcoin 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…
[deleted]
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#156"The Commission believes that, in order to meet this standard, an exchange that lists and trades shares of commodity-trust exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) must, in addition to other applicable requirements, satisfy two requirements that are dispositive in this matter. First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that co…
Which is exactly right, but couldn't the same argument be used against a gold etf?
I think it would apply to foreign currency ETFs, since the foreign exchange markets aren't exchanged-based. Foreign currencies aren't commodities though, so apparently it's completely different situation to a commodity like bitcoin.
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#157Bitcoin 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…
It's not reasonable in the sense that the SEC should respond to the level of trader interest in BTC with something other than "don't trade it". The SEC has a three pronged mission: - Protect investors - Maintain fair, orderly, and efficiently markets - Facilitate capital formation With this decision they missed on all three. No investor was protected. The BTC market today was not fair, orderly, or efficient. There wa…
Says you... According to their ruling, they're doing this exactly to protect investors.
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#158Earlier 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?
Not "all" of the exchanges - I think the key is the term "significant markets". You need to have most people who do significant amounts of BTC transactions on regulated exchanges as opposed to everyone.
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#159Earlier 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.
I am not sure why you put the word currency in quotes. There have also been many state issued currencies that have done similar - see Thai Baht, Argentine Peso, Russian Ruble, Venezuelan Bolivar etc.
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#160This is a good thing for Bitcoin. The ETF rules in my opinion gave too much power to miners. The rules stated that the ETF would follow the chain with the most work after just 48 hours. Miners need income, because mining is actively expensive. In the long term, this means they have to mine on the chain with the most valuable block reward. This means the economy really gets to decide the longest chain, not the miners.…
function generateBitcoinNewsReaction(oldPrice, newPrice) { if (oldPrice > newPrice) { return "This is good for bitcoin."; } else if (oldPrice
function generateBitcoinSkepticism(oldPrice, newPrice) {
if (oldPrice > newPrice) {
return "It was a bubble all along.";
} else if (oldPrice