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

SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 357 posts

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#101

Post by cortesoft »

dmichulke wrote: post #48
dhosek wrote: post #37

Here's the basic thing: Bitcoin is fatally flawed. Is it meant to be a payment method (in which case an ETF or otherwise treating it as an investment vehicle is roughly as nonsensical as having an ETF that deals with blank checks) or is it an investment (and if it's an investment, what on earth are people investing in?). The volatility of Bitcoin plus the constrained supply leading towards upwards pressure on the pri…

> deflation is a bad thing as it creates an incentive to not spend Positive interest rates would be bad by the same logic

What, why? Positive interest rates are meant to compensate FOR inflation. Because there is inflation, people can't just hold onto their money in cash; they have to put it into an interest bearing account in order to not lose money over time. Keeping your money in a bank account is NOT the same as hoarding a currency, because the money in a bank account is lent out to other people to spend. Money in a bank account is still participating in the economy.

Bitcoin investors are not like this; they are holding onto the money in hopes the value goes up. The bitcoins they are holding are not being used for any financial transactions. Those bitcoins are essentially out of the economy while they are being held. This is bad for an economy, when the currency is more valuable as an investment than as a vehicle for economic transactions.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#102

Post by aric »

Unrealistic security should be the only reason to disapprove of a bitcoin ETF governed by the SEC. Not only is it poorly suited for reckless centralization by thousands of indirect investors, but bitcoin as a whole would be setup up for massive government retaliation once the keys are compromised. MtGox x 10,000.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#103

Post by Taek »

Analemma_ wrote: post #100
slg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. That is a loss of 25% of its value. This announcement does nothing to hurt the utility of Bitcoin or its application as a medium of exchange. That drop certainly seems like a speculative investment bubble popping.

Yup. Any "currency" that can plummet in value by 25% because of a minor SEC ruling is not ready to be a store of value.

Well, it can't compete with the USD. But plenty of nations like Venezuela have citizens that would happily take a >25% haircut to escape their governments capital controls. When Greece went bankrupt, life was much easier for anyone with Bitcoin than for anyone without it.

As many issues as Bitcoin has today, it has clear use cases.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#104

Post by Analemma_ »

Taek wrote: post #65

This is a good thing for Bitcoin. The ETF rules in my opinion gave too much power to miners. The rules stated that the ETF would follow the chain with the most work after just 48 hours. Miners need income, because mining is actively expensive. In the long term, this means they have to mine on the chain with the most valuable block reward. This means the economy really gets to decide the longest chain, not the miners.…

  function generateBitcoinNewsReaction(oldPrice, newPrice) {
    if (oldPrice > newPrice) {
      return "This is good for bitcoin.";
    } else if (oldPrice

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#105

Post by AYBABTME »

jzig wrote: post #21

Coinbase is down.

I've just been trying out Coinbase recently and I'm pretty annoyed with them. For one, Canadians can't sell & withdraw money, and their buy/sell limits are ridiculously annoying. On top of this, their fees are very expensive and just right now, they have an outage in the middle of an important news. This is like failing at all the core important bits.

Is there a more serious thing than Coinbase that exists?

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#106

Post by thinkloop »

chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

The next step seems to be to create a regulated market - anyone know what that means, or whether there is something inherent to Bitcoin that doesn't allow it? Coinbase has KYC, banking relationships and tax integration, I'm sure that can be extended to an exchange.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#107

Post by joering2 »

kgwgk wrote: post #76
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"bitcoin" itself is unregulated in the same way gold itself is unregulated.

There are regulated markets for gold.

Even worse than that. You are not allowed to re-melt your piece of gold if that item has a serial number on it.

Basically most smiths run an official registry. Even though a gold bullion is yours, most countries will forbid you from melting it into something else and destroying serial number in process, just like even if you own your house you cannot set it on fire. There are penalties including jail time. Its irrelevant if you put same serial number back on remelted PM.

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#108

Post by drharby »

chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

> Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulated. I'm not sure I entirely understand if they mean that Bitcoin itself must be regulated or just that the SEC needs to see that the major exchanges are regulated.

I'd challenge ANY government to regulate cold, hard, cash

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#109

Post by kolinko »

thinkloop wrote: post #106
chollida1 wrote: post #18

Bitcoin just went from a high of 1327.1926 to 995.9575 in the blink of an eye. Wow. From the ruling.... > First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity. And second, those markets must be regulated. > Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulat…

The next step seems to be to create a regulated market - anyone know what that means, or whether there is something inherent to Bitcoin that doesn't allow it? Coinbase has KYC, banking relationships and tax integration, I'm sure that can be extended to an exchange.

You'd need to force all the unregulated exchanges to close down, and block ability to run smart contracts or any other software on it.

And do it in all the major jurisdictions?

Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

#110

Post by kfrzcode »

astrange wrote: post #94
stOneskull wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gold is a precious metal. bitcoin is a text file.

Bitcoin is a share of a conversion from electricity to waste heat.

Which ceases to exist entirely after a mega-solar-flare.

Gold persists.

Post reply on HN