SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] • Hacker News Board

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#141

Post by altairprime » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

IKantRead wrote: post #89

paulpauper wrote: post #46

Yeah this is really bad for BTC longs. now it will probably be delayed. it's obvious that there is too much fraud and manipulation.. The SEC cannot in good conscious allow an ETF to protect investors (yes, ETFs which have lost all value like UVXY have been approved). Whoever did this furcked over wall street and these funds. Wow. never a dull moment.

Who in the world is still long on crypto? In the past few years we've seen ample evidence that crypto is largely a complete scam, and likewise strong evidence that none of crypto's hoped for value will come to fruition (we didn't see it useful for fighting inflation, it's not being used to avoid sanctions, it certainly isn't being used as a currency, etc). The fact that crypto still has any market value, and that com…

Just because it’s obviously a con, doesn’t negate the possibility of get rich quick outcomes for blockchain participants. Human beings are quite well known for being easily suckered into lazy profit opportunities, and for rationalizing away complex ethical concerns when complicit in suckering others. Otherwise pyramid schemes would never work.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#142

Post by smeej » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

IKantRead wrote: post #89

paulpauper wrote: post #46

Yeah this is really bad for BTC longs. now it will probably be delayed. it's obvious that there is too much fraud and manipulation.. The SEC cannot in good conscious allow an ETF to protect investors (yes, ETFs which have lost all value like UVXY have been approved). Whoever did this furcked over wall street and these funds. Wow. never a dull moment.

Who in the world is still long on crypto? In the past few years we've seen ample evidence that crypto is largely a complete scam, and likewise strong evidence that none of crypto's hoped for value will come to fruition (we didn't see it useful for fighting inflation, it's not being used to avoid sanctions, it certainly isn't being used as a currency, etc). The fact that crypto still has any market value, and that com…

I'm short "crypto," but long bitcoin.

Most of the ecosystem is scammy garbage, but I think there's still going to be enough demand for sound money that a currency that can't be artificially manipulated by a central bank will do well, relative to currencies that can.

Perhaps I'll be wrong, but that's why I'm not heavily leveraged and I hedge my bets.

I don't think the entire ecosystem is garbage. I do think there are a few useful ideas other than bitcoin. But I can easily support the assertion that more than 99% of the "crypto" things that exist are worthless and/or outright scams.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#143

Post by solardev » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #103

solardev wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the grey check mean?

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label... "The grey checkmark indicates that an account represents a government/multilateral organization or a government/multilateral official. Eligibility criteria to receive a complimentary grey checkmark are listed below. Additional government and multilateral accounts can receive grey checkmarks through Verified Organizations. Eligible government organization…

Thanks for the quote!

Lol, I can't believe this is really what they ended up with: multicolored stars to indicate different things? I thought it was a joke at first, but no, that's really how it works now. What a strange world...

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#144

Post by jayd16 » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

thewanderer1983 wrote: post #81

dageshi wrote: post #52

I am glad to see the cyberpunk future of hackers impersonating government agencies in order to pump and dump digital currency has finally arrived.

Unlike the long history of price manipulation in traditional markets?

Is it surprising that cybercrime is just crime in cyberspace?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#145

Post by samsin » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #138

mrsilencedogood wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ETF's are so pervasive because they're so easy. VIX futures can be held, but people still buy VIXY and similar products. You can buy literal physical gold, but people still buy GLD et al. And it hardly matters that wrapping it in an ETF makes it potentially really weird (like how GLD and other gold ETFs are only barely nominally like holding gold, and VIX ETFs often hold cash-settled futures based on the value of a f…

It's the "it makes it easier" part that I am debating. Yes buying into a gold ETF is obviously easier because going out and buying physical gold takes more effort. But for a bitcoin ETF you are trading two clicks on one site vs two clicks on another. And in the ETF case you don't actually get to own any Bitcoin. So where's the advantage?

I believe the argument is that it makes it easier for institutions like fund managers and businesses because they don't need to be concerned with custodianship.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#146

Post by wfme » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

IKantRead wrote: post #111

thewanderer1983 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the long history of price manipulation in traditional markets?

The old crypto chants were that crypto would lead us away from the ills of traditional markets/finance. Glad to see that it's been watered down to "just as bad as" arguments.

What "chants" are you referring to specifically re differences in markets? AFAIK it has always been pushed as a decentralized alternative to sending money, but that has little bearing on the way the traded price changes?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#147

Post by johnea » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:13 PM UTC

This is exactly why official agencies should have their own mechanismm of public communication, and not rely on 3rd party corporate chat platforms...

How the FED, SEC, and any government office thought having a faceplant or twit account was good idea is beyond me...

Of course, those who throw themselves gushingly at every corporate slime to crawl out from under a rock will have a hard time understanding this opinion. That is also part of the problem...

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#148

Post by transcriptase » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:13 PM UTC

IKantRead wrote: post #111

thewanderer1983 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the long history of price manipulation in traditional markets?

The old crypto chants were that crypto would lead us away from the ills of traditional markets/finance. Glad to see that it's been watered down to "just as bad as" arguments.

I’ll admit it has been deeply entertaining watching the crypto community speed-run 200 years of “finding out the hard way why modern financial regulations exist” and “how to recognize a blisteringly obvious ponzi scheme” in the span of 15 years.

I say this as someone who got his first 0.05 btc for signing up for a newsletter in 2009 or 2010.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#149

Post by Workaccount2 » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:13 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #49

The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.

Who cares about $25bn?

These guys hacked the SEC, made huge announcement tweet, and only got a 3% move from that. More over, they only had a 10 minute window to close whatever positions they had before BTC crashed through it's pre-hack price.

There is a fair chance that they actually lost money on this play, lol.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#150

Post by paxys » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 10:13 PM UTC

Eji1700 wrote: post #110

paxys wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.

We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things. There was already some for radio/early news, but the landscape has changed so much, and it bothers me a ton that these platforms are being used.

The government has always used privately owned companies (newspapers, news channels, news websites) to make announcements. Social media is just the latest iteration of that. The government operating its own websites is in fact the aberration, and I'd wager the vast majority of people don't even know they exist or visit them. So not sure what such a law would accomplish.