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

351–357 of 357 posts

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

#351

Post by blusterXY »

dragonwriter wrote: post #79
subverter wrote: post #49

Coin Center executive director Jerry Brito: > The Winklevoss ETF proposal was rejected because the SEC found that the significant markets for Bitcoin tend to be unregulated overseas markets that are potentially subject to price manipulation. But this creates a chicken and egg problem. How do we develop well-capitalized and regulated markets in the U.S. and Europe if financial innovators aren’t allowed to bring produc…

The SEC's job (relevant to the issue at hand) is not to make it easy to drive demand in the US on the hopes that that might create conditions for mature markets in $COMMODITY, it is to assure that exchanges listing derivatives of $COMMODITY have adequate rules in place to protect against manipulation, including manipulation of the derivative through manipulation of the underlying commodity. If the key driver for dome…

How did oil ETF pass with OPEC in existence? Did they just stop doing their job that day?

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

#352

Post by hndamien »

cortesoft wrote: post #101
dmichulke wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deflation is a bad thing as it creates an incentive to not spend Positive interest rates would be bad by the same logic

What, why? Positive interest rates are meant to compensate FOR inflation. Because there is inflation, people can't just hold onto their money in cash; they have to put it into an interest bearing account in order to not lose money over time. Keeping your money in a bank account is NOT the same as hoarding a currency, because the money in a bank account is lent out to other people to spend. Money in a bank account is…

This is not how it works at all. Holders/ "hoarders" of Bitcoin do not decrease the utility of the network one iota. Because there is infinite divisibility, if I want to take some fiat and move it to another place via the network then return it to fiat at some arbitary price at a point in time, the fact people are holding (even if 99% of all Bitcoins were locked up) makes no difference to the utility of the network. All that has happened is that the decimal point has moved.

What is happening is that supply is reduced. Demand has presumably remained the same as it otherwise would have been, and as a result the price rises. This is great for people holding, and it encourages more saving - but the rising tide is lifting for all boats here.

For you who is just temporarily utilising the network, the fact that the price of Bitcoin might be ludicrously high (in your opinion) doesn't change the fact that you can utilise the advantages of a decentralised liberated money for your wealth movement at the same cost that it would have been if Bitcoin were at a low price.

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

#353

Post by andy_ppp »

petre wrote: post #271
andy_ppp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't look at bitcoin as a currency I look at it as a fungible reserve like Gold or a Rolex. Both of those things usually appreciate in value, especially in uncertain times; I'll be using this price decrease to buy more I think.

In highly uncertain times, for example when civilization would be reverted back to the Middle Ages or a Fukushima/911 event, bitcoin would be of lesser use due to lack of an Internet connection. People need food and water in those circumstances, not bitcoin or Rolexes.

Yes because you're going to survive an event like that; the Fukushima and 911 references don't make sense because you clearly don't understand what I was talking about. I'm talking about being able to have a reserve that can be converted easily into something useful (fungible) so bitcoin in these events might not be useful but nor would gold or a Rolex. I'm just stating why I think Bitcoin price will continue to rise even though it's not a currency.

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

#354

Post by Blahah »

shitgoose wrote: post #339
Blahah wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great stuff in the sense that one person can directly profit to the tune of a billion dollars, by manipulating currency markets, at the cost of the taxpayers of an entire nation. So, not great stuff at all.

He did not manipulate pound. UK government manipulated it by locking the exchange rate that did not reflect the fundamentals. Pound was doomed, Soros just profited from the crash. So, yes, great stuff - government should pay for its stupidity. Unfortunately they pay with our money...

He shorted the pound enough to move the market significantly, and his buyback strategy deliberately prevented any stabilisation. The crash wouldn't have happened or at least wouldn't have been as bad without his involvement.

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

#355

Post by mrb »

mrb wrote: post #321
koolba wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

Do not think so. 20 hours after the SEC decision and BTC continues to climb... $1200 now.

And 3 days after the SEC decision BTC still continues to climb... $1240 now.

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

#356

Post by shitgoose »

Blahah wrote: post #354
shitgoose wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not manipulate pound. UK government manipulated it by locking the exchange rate that did not reflect the fundamentals. Pound was doomed, Soros just profited from the crash. So, yes, great stuff - government should pay for its stupidity. Unfortunately they pay with our money...

He shorted the pound enough to move the market significantly, and his buyback strategy deliberately prevented any stabilisation. The crash wouldn't have happened or at least wouldn't have been as bad without his involvement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oET45GzMI

a good overview of the origins of the crisis. how politicians for their own shortsighted gains made one poor decision after another and led the country into financial crisis.

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

#357

Post by cestith »

slg wrote: post #171
cestith wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On 2001-09-11 gasoline tripled, food doubled, and bottled water as much as quadrupled or quintupled in dollar pricing in parts of the US in less than a day. Yes, there were in fact $4/gallon, $5/gallon, and even $8/gallon gasoline and diesel prices posted, many by noon. This also increased the price of everything shipped by truck for a while, too. Prices came off that peak quickly, but took months to years to revert…

Gas prices actually dropped in the months after 9/11 [1]. Any place that was charging $8 per gallon day of was guilty of price gouging. Either way, you are comparing an SEC decision to the aftermath of the largest terrorist attack in history. Don't you think the scale of these two events is a little different? [1] - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=E...

Parent post said "nothing short of a global nuclear war". Don't you think that's yet another difference in scale?
Post reply on HN