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

481–490 of 518 posts

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#481

Post by nprateem »

snapcaster wrote: post #86
nprateem wrote: post #51

POW crypto should be globally banned on ecological grounds.

People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining? I also think access to and freedom to use electricity as you wish is really underrated as a freedom. Maybe consider that if you start this precedent people will end up policing your energy use too

Probably so they aren't deflected.

POW could be replaced by the more efficient POS, but network effects make that highly unlikely without government intervention.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#482

Post by wslh »

zikduruqe wrote: post #405
wslh wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My two cents: they should cryptographically sign their messages in other platforms. There is enough length in Twitter now. I think the SEC is really responsible for not protecting investors in this case.

>they should cryptographically sign their messages in other platforms Like a Nostr account?

Could Nostr now use Twitter/X or any other transport as an alternative?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#483

Post by rsynnott »

paulgb wrote: post #286
throw310822 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Europe. I don't have a fund manager and I have invested in stocks on a low cost trading platform. Now I also have an account on Coinbase, which is an entirely different beast- different security, different responsibilities. It feels much more like owning physical goods than investing. There is a friction that would undoubtedly be solved by bitcoin ETFs. There's hundred of millions of causal investors who pr…

If you’re in EU, why do you need to wait on a US ETF? There is already a spot Bitcoin ETF on Euronext, BCOIN. (Not rhetorical! I am curious about the mechanics of this)

And, further, the US ETFs, should they be authorised, almost certainly won't be available to EU retail traders, as the companies involved are highly unlikely to makes them UCITS compliant (for the likes of Blackrock and Vanguard, the general approach is to make separate non-UCITS and UCITS funds for the US and EU respectively).

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#484

Post by askonomm »

mrb wrote: post #454
askonomm wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I opened my Wise account in 20 minutes. The ID verification is all automated so it's really quick. I haven't heard of anyone who is unbanked before though, what would be a reason for that?

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#485

Post by diggan »

wlesieutre wrote: post #134
addicted wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”…

They didn't say the SEC did it, they said the SEC was "responsible" for it. Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.

> Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.

It seems like SEC didn't even have some basic protections in place for their Twitter account, like having 2nd-factor enabled. That feels kind of negligent already, even if they had a very secure password.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#486

Post by andrewla »

derangedHorse wrote: post #369
andrewla wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$2k is ~5%; that's enough in a short enough time to trigger equity market circuit breakers and temporarily pause trading. Bitcoin has no such controls because there is no NMS regulation applied here, which is one of the SEC's fears around allowing Bitcoin ETFs. I generally don't agree with this guidance as it is not universally applied to ETFs that the SEC has allowed historically, but it does buttress their case to…

If we're just talking percentage changes, that can already happen with other commodity ETFs. I'll concede to the point that Bitcoin has historically been more volatile and could have a higher frequency of halts, but I personally don't think that should impact the formation of the ETF.

Violent agreement here, I think -- I also feel that the criteria are being applied arbitrarily and capriciously and we accept many things as ETF members that have far less liquid spot markets than Bitcoin. But incidents like this don't help.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#487

Post by Tao3300 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #305
Tao3300 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s probably a great technology It really isn't. There's nothing legal it can do that something else can't do better. It's not even that good at the illegal stuff.

That's much closer to being true now than it was when bitcoin started getting popular, in no small part because it scared financial institutions into competing on convenience. But really, who says legality is the arbiter of greatness anyway? Are you really prepared to say that every illegal use of blockchain should never happen? I'm not.

> who says legality is the arbiter of greatness anyway?

I don't know; who does? I said it was bad at all the things.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#488

Post by mlrtime »

paulpauper wrote: post #278
Shosty123 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Takes like these are so moronic it hurts. I just paid an artist across the globe for some icons; the transaction took seconds to resolve and cost me cents to send via SOL. The closest I've come to that is Canada's eTransfer system, but it only works in Canada.

you are ignoring the onramp /offramp problem of converting crypto to fiat

You are ignoring the possibility he got paid in SOL for some other work. Or the possibility the recipient of his SOL can buy dinner using SOL. This is all possible, even if unlikely.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#489

Post by Zaskoda »

kevingadd wrote: post #471
Zaskoda wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes it's doing something useful - securing the network and ensuring consensus

It's already been proven that you can secure a network without wasting massive amounts of electricity

has it though?

I'm not sure which of the many consensus protocols you may have in mind, but proof of stake is the most popular alternative.

A 51% attack for PoW requires that someone can afford to power 51% of the network. That's expensive. Once the attack is detected, the community can fork away from the moment of the attack.

A 51% attack for PoS requires that someone owns 51% of the tokens. At that point, the attack costs nothing. If the attack is detected and the community forks, the attacker still has enough tokens to attack again on the new network - at no cost.

All of this stuff is brand new. Saying that any of it is "proven" is pretty bold.

Re: SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed]

#490

Post by dogman144 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #417
dogman144 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, traditional finance making products based on an asset which some of the most radical anarchocapitalists hold market-moving amounts of, bodes well.

Does it? Traditional finance is no stranger to extremely speculative assets, the difference is just when those assets go to zero for the banks it's a tiny fraction of their portfolio, for all the anarcho online enthusiasts it's usually their savings. Reminds me of the Gamestop fiasco one or two years ago.

Yes, if in your mind a summer of Gamestop meme trading equals a technology with 40 years of research from the top applied cryptographers, 10 years of production testing, and an asset with thin markets and extremely asymmetric holdings.

The ability to easily reduce crypto to some hot take and equivalence is why otherwise quite smart people keep missing the space for the last decade.

Post reply on HN