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

SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#251

Post by wmf »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #136
jakderrida wrote: post #75

I know making millions off crypto doesn't make me an authority, but... It's not an investment. I made money off people speculating by taking advantage solely off an inefficient market. There's nothing else to it. Money put in is not used to generate more wealth. Whether it's going to be used as an official currency in the future in no way would make an investment, nor would it mean it should even go up an value.

This is half a joke, but maybe there is demand for a vehicle for speculation that isn't tied to anything real, at all. It achieves some sort of purity of concept. Plenty of people _gamble_ on the stock market but there has always been some sort of link to reality. With crypto, you can cut that tether and really treat it like gambling, rigged odds and all.

There is absolutely demand for that, especially when you add in artificial scarcity.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#252

Post by krapp »

neilv wrote: post #226

Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? Those are for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing. The SEC doesn't need brand promotion, nor to be caught up in nastiness like pervades X/Twitter. The SEC already has the authority, they do their job with it, and presumably they value respectability. Earl…

>Why do government agencies even have accounts on proprietary walled-garden online platforms? That's for purposes like celebrity publicists, influencer brand promotion, disreputable mob behavior, and astroturfing.

You're describing some of the behaviors that occur on those platforms, not their purpose. Governments have accounts on those platforms because it makes communicating with their constituents easier, because that's where the people are. It would be grossly irresponsible in this day and age for a government not to have any social media presence at all.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#253

Post by psychlops »

addicted wrote: post #114
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.

This is quite literally not a pump and dump by the SEC. A pump and dump would require the same entity to be doing the buying, pumping up, and then dumping the asset. The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price). Even assuming that the “largest pump and dump” claim is correct, at most, the SEC was used for that purpose and isn’t “responsible”…

I'm sure many people can use this as their defense. "I didn't buy and sell on the news, my friend did!"

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#254

Post by drzaiusapelord »

cempaka wrote: post #178

Matthew C. Klein pointed out on Twitter: "the owner/operator of this website has a longstanding grudge against America's securities regulator."

Also this should be a massive warning to companies, non-profits, and governments who think "Sure, Elon is mismanaging this and platforming the worst people and making it a cult of personality, but its not that bad. We get to reach a lot of people, so its still good for us."

Now they have to worry about whether Elon is in the mood to give your account proper security or if your password hash leaked "by accident" by a "junior dev." Or just the everyday incompetence of all personality-cult organizations. Elon went from being sued by the SEC to hosting its humiliation.

Elon is chuckling it up right now. The problem with personality-led companies is that if you get on the bad side of that personality, then anything goes.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#255

Post by derangedHorse »

paxys wrote: post #80

Is this fabled Bitcoin ETF really going to be the "to the moon" moment that everyone in the ecosystem seems to be expecting? From personal experience, I can't think of anyone who wants to buy Bitcoin but hasn't been able to by now. It takes a few clicks on Coinbase/Robinhood or a similar exchange. Plenty of 401k/IRA managers (including Fidelity) offer it as an option. So what exactly changes once this ETF is live?

401k accounts at Fidelity don’t generally allow one to hold Bitcoin even if they do have a self directed account. With a Bitcoin ETF people don’t need permission from their employer anymore. I’m also skeptical of their current plans and whether they actually allow people to hold Bitcoin. Employees I’ve spoken to in the department have told me the most Id be able to get in a retirement account is “exposure” to the broader crypto market which is undesirable to those who are just interested in Bitcoin.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#256

Post by initplus »

mrsilencedogood wrote: post #120
paxys wrote: post #80

Is this fabled Bitcoin ETF really going to be the "to the moon" moment that everyone in the ecosystem seems to be expecting? From personal experience, I can't think of anyone who wants to buy Bitcoin but hasn't been able to by now. It takes a few clicks on Coinbase/Robinhood or a similar exchange. Plenty of 401k/IRA managers (including Fidelity) offer it as an option. So what exactly changes once this ETF is live?

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…

Bitcoin futures ETF's already exist - I'm not convinced that a spot price ETF is any huge breakthrough.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#257

Post by altairprime »

epgui wrote: post #183
altairprime wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the hacking entity did the pump and dump, then their statement is valid: the SEC’s incaution made this possible.

Since we're all being a bit pedantic here... the SEC would be responsible for negligently allowing a third-party pump to happen-- they would not be responsible for a pump and dump. Pump and dump requires intention (and requires dumping).

Yep, that’s a fine phrasing of it!

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#258

Post by cempaka »

AustinDev wrote: post #244
cempaka wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time seeing the SEC not delaying until at least March after that fiasco (or even pushing back against the tweet itself if they were intending to approve anyway), but I guess tomorrow will tell the tale. It's fees BlackRock cares about, not the Bitcoin price.

If fees are all they care about they make money anyway. No idea how that constitutes them being Rugged.

They don't make anything if the ETF doesn't get SEC approval.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#259

Post by nicwolff »

Jenk wrote: post #246
mrb wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In about the same time frame someone offered me 16,000 BTC for a mediocre graphics card I put on a listing. (I turned it down.)

Someone has to post it: that'd be worth $736,592,000 today if you'd kept it all.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#260

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chankstein38 wrote: post #233
ChainOfFools wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example might be that the government sets up its own very basic one-way tweet-like notification service, something as simple as or simpler than an RSS feed, with the official content accessible directly via a .gov hosted web page. Whatever X is or becomes, as owned by private interests, is trusted with nothing more than scraping and rebroadcasting the original and authentic source. A solution with less developer a…

Your ideas are honestly great and both of the solutions you presented (RSS->.gov site and public keys) feel like great solutions. I think the problem is that both of those require the general public to have some amount of technical knowledge which is, apparently, a big ask. The first would be a lot easier to present and avoid confusion but it'd still require people to know to go to that site. For what it's worth thou…

> both of those require the general public to have some amount of technical knowledge

Twitter and Instagram could repost the government feeds.

Post reply on HN