The fact BTC is a lot lower means that the odds of approval have fallen. Manifold markets still giving 90% odds. https://manifold.markets/123Newsletter/will-a-spot-btc-etf-b... this would be a good short but no liquidity
SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
201–210 of 518 posts
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
More approved use means more standard financial industry products using BTC, means more overall volume/value in BTC, means higher price. Of course people holding BTC will like that.
>Of course people holding BTC will like that. Given that the original Whitepaper is titled: "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" and a news article describing the 2009 bank bailout is literally baked into the very first block people celebrating slow morphing of Bitcoin into a traditional finance product is at least a little bit funny. Instead of a hedge crypto is now just effectively a correlate of the financial m…
Conversely, traditional finance making products based on an asset which some of the most radical anarchocapitalists hold market-moving amounts of, bodes well.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#203The 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.
The expectation is that the ETF is going to be approved very soon, so it's priced in.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#204This is icing on the cake of this manipulated attempt to restart the crypto craze. These morons are so greedy that they undermine themselves.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#205Here is a tweet from one of the main ETF experts: @EricBalchunas "On TV right on talking about this.. and yes, I think someone prepped a planned tweet and put wrong date, bc the tweet would have made PERFECT sense tomorrow at this time. The language sounds legit SEC-ish IMO vs a crypto knucklehead pulling a prank but I guess we'll see.." https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1744835562643595652
nope. this is 100% a hack. the sec would not make such a post using that picture. why would there be a picture of Gensler? that makes no sense. it would be a press release of some sort, maybe followed by a tweet.
yup
https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1744841094997680477
why would the SEC 'like' random accounts? hacked
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
By clicking on it
Clicking on any blue check mark shows "this account is verified". But that isn't supposed to mean verified?
This is what it says when I click on it.
> This account is verified because it is a government or multilateral organization account.
Along with a link to "Learn More"[0]
[0] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/profile-label...
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#207From a Slack of market observers I frequent: "Right now, someone is explaining to the BlackRock board, 'you got rugged, it happens all the time in crypto.' "
Blackrock is huge. This is a rounding error to it. The people who got rugged were retail who bought into the hype since October.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
0.05? You probably misremember the amount. For reference, in 2010 the Bitcoin faucet gave away 5 BTC just for visiting a web page. A decent incentive for subscribing to a newsletter, more involved than visiting a web page, would have to have been higher than 5 BTC.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tomorrow your bank could cut you off from your own money because you protested the government[1], and what could you possibly do? Having the freedom to truly own your own money and investments is valuable in and of itself, no matter how much crypto "devolves" towards traditional finance in other regards. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro...
Apart from some edge cases, Western democracies have quite solid property rights upheld also by the judicial system. But yes if you’re in Russia or China then this argument is moot. They have much less property rights. However, Bitcoin is also not a solution because there is no point in owning Bitcoin if you fell trice out of a Russian window or are sentenced to a labour camp or to the death penalty in China for "fra…
I certainly wouldn't call being Canadian an "edge case."
Protesting ought to be something you can do in any Western democracy without fear of losing access to your accounts.
Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]
#210Yeah 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.
For a 3% gain that they might well have missed holding out for more, lol.
leverage, options, etc. more than 3%