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

451–460 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#451

Post by yieldcrv »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #399
yieldcrv wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you know those amateurs at the SEC were trying to schedule a post and accidentally pressed send gensler freaked out and said it was compromised

It is a bit weird the tweet went out exactly a day before the approval is supposed to happen. Let's assume it was the SEC's fault, either by accident or otherwise, could they be charged with market manipulation? Which agency would have authority to investigate? Quite a few people were tricked into buying right before the price dropped like a rock. Shorters have made a killing.

I never hear anybody talk about it, but we do specifically have a court of federal claims, whose jurisdiction covers losses tied to government actions

check out recent decisions to see if anything could apply here

nothing happens to the agency itself, theyre immune

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#452

Post by m25n »

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?

This is likely going to be for certain large institutional funds where there are many restrictions on what can be bought. Buying an ETF is often the easiest path for them. Also, retail folks that like the idea of the SEC signing off on it (I think this is a silly reason but I can empathize with why that might be comforting for some).

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#453

Post by qingcharles »

sp332 wrote: post #230
solardev wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That’s why Tumblr gives you two checkmarks, and lets you pick the color. E.g. https://www.tumblr.com/amtrak-official

lol.. I didn't know if you were joking... you weren't!

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#454

Post by mrb »

askonomm wrote: post #375
AlexandrB wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can do this for free in Canada with Interac as long as both parties have Canadian bank accounts. But for international transfer theres not a good solution AFAIK. Bitcoin ATMs are an interesting example because they involve at least one trusted third party - the Bitcoin ATM operator.

Wise (previously Transferwise) can do international transfer within seconds. If you're in Europe then payments between any bank in Europe take seconds (SEPA payments).

Wise wouldn't have worked as my friend was among the 10M American adults who are unbanked. Also I doubt him and I would have been able to do account setup on a Sunday, within 1 hour, which is the time it took us to do the transfer, despite this situation being his first time ever using Bitcoin.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#455

Post by qingcharles »

FireBeyond wrote: post #295
tamimio wrote: post #227

I have never looked at BTC as a quick trading rather a long investment, I still have many BTC since 2010 and never sold it.

Considering BTC was at around 10c in 2010 and you have many of them... You must have some of the steeliest nerves and self control the world has ever seen. At what point does a 46.19 MILLION per cent gain become insufficient?

There was a wallet came alive a few weeks ago that had been dormant since 2010 and moved $125m out. I'd love to know the story.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#456

Post by qingcharles »

rhyperior wrote: post #379
traeregan wrote: post #62

This is so wild. Assuming it was financially motivated, wouldn't the involved party stand to benefit more by shorting and posting that the ETF was denied?

And that's why the most likely answer is that the message was queued to go out and sent prematurely.

The message was really official looking too, which is how they fooled me.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#457

Post by m25n »

moose_man wrote: post #204

This is icing on the cake of this manipulated attempt to restart the crypto craze. These morons are so greedy that they undermine themselves.

Yeah, you definitely shouldn’t buy Bitcoin because it’s going to crash: https://youtu.be/XbZ8zDpX2Mg?si=PyP8bPAOUftVyAcS

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#458

Post by jcliff »

paxys wrote: post #308
sowbug wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Futures ETFs own no Bitcoin. Spot ETFs would.

People buying into the ETFs don't own the Bitcoin either way, so doesn't really make a difference to them.

On the contrary, it makes a significant difference. Futures have to roll over monthly and there's costs associated with that. Depending on the slope of the futures curve, the costs can be high (10+%). Holding spot bitcoin solves this problem and makes the fund more palatable to advisors and institutions.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#459

Post by rpz »

rpz wrote: post #319

Has anybody else poked around in a bitcoin blockchain block explorer recently to look at the individual transactions of a block? Honestly I find it kind of suspicious but I could easily be missing something. I see multiple transactions spend more on fees than the amount exchanged in the transaction. A number of transactions looked enormous but turned out to be some form of washing. E.g address X sends $100MM worth of…

A number of replies are wondering if I am misunderstanding bitcoin’s UTXO model. Considering the amount of replies I’m going to assume that is the case :). Thanks to most of you for your kind replies!

With that being said I’m still confused about how blockchain.com is representing this data. Consider block 825075 on the bitcoin blockchain.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/825075?page=1...

Not all of the transactions in this block show with multiple outputs where one output is the originating address. In fact if you sort by value ascending you’ll be able to see multiple transactions from the same address to the same address amount to $.13 with fees $2.86 transaction ids 78b1741ee0946380d9ee31d51d160a637394b24b5cfdc2871861d8e1db484d2f and 201a94087323d152911575ea029df9d1a0d46626a1b18211727be913d747e72f and so on.

Now, contrast those transactions with transaction f395de972c4ba3fea85a2c1621bfe9fa238950f6a2eb3d3b4932f7f620f63ce2

Why do they display differently on blockchain.com?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#460

Post by vkou »

pants2 wrote: post #424
vkou wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a fact that North Korea relies on hacking it for funding critical imports at this point… A fact? What are the #s that they are bringing in from hacking, versus the $4.8 billion/year they bring in from exports to China/Africa?

$1.8B lost to crypto hacks in 2023. Hard to say how much of that is North Korea, but it's a nontrivial amount.

Lost is also not necessarily equivalent to successfully laundered.
Post reply on HN