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

141–150 of 357 posts

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

#141

Post by johnyzee »

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.

There is already a regulated market - the Winklevoss' Gemini exchange. They went out of their way to make sure everything about their exchange is in compliance, specifically for it to serve as the market for the ETF commodity.

Unfortunately for them, the SEC, quite reasonably, requires more than one regulated market to exist for the underlying commodity, and probably preferably not owned by the company behind the ETF itself. Seems obvious in retrospect.

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

#142

Post by asciimo »

brianpgordon wrote: post #123
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…

Frame this and put it on your wall- https://i.imgur.com/tct42F0.png

Eh, it'll be back. It has died a thousand times.

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

#143

Post by bbcbasic »

iaw wrote: post #117
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…

When the Winklevoss twins became aware of BTC (or at least shortly after they started talking about it publicly), some classic market manipulation ploys began appearing. It could be coincidental, but I've always been suspicious that the Winklevoss twins were the first people of a mind and with the capital to start gaming the BTC market as one can any other financial institution. The Winklevii are not people I'd like…

> some classic market manipulation ploys began appearing

Cryptocoin markets are a haven for scams and manipulations. When I was into it I was hearing of a new scam almost every week. I don't think there is any correlation with Winklevoss let alone causation. Unless you have some evidence or references to present?

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

#144

Post by vostok »

chillacy wrote: post #136
zeusk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 50x leveraged short contract This is partly why SEC wants underlying to be regulated.

What's stopping him from doing a similar thing by selling deep OOTM options off of money he borrows on his margin account at any other broker?

Deep out of the money options have optionality whereas BitMex contracts are delta 1 products. They have literally nothing in common. The relevant difference in this case is that the option caps your upside.

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

#145

Post by xorcist »

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.

An exchange that doesn't close shop on sudden market moves would be a good start. (Coinbase, which you mentioned specifically, was unreachable the whole time.) One that would honor all orders, in the right order, and with enough liquidity to make customers whole when they for some reason didn't, would be even better.

Then some proper options would be nice. Preferrably someone who doesn't trade against their own customers, which at least one exchange is open about. There's a lot that could be done in the Bitcoin ecosysten (well, at least we are rid of MtGox).

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

#146

Post by ratacat »

joecool1029 wrote: post #30
paulpauper wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

safer than many foreign currencies, which have lost 30-99% of their value relative to the USD since 2013

Yeah but we're talking about a loss of 30% of its value in under 5 minutes. Brexit vote to the GBP wasn't even that bad.

Eh, most of us were expecting it to fall worse.

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

#147

Post by Consultant32452 »

kfrzcode wrote: post #110
astrange wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

If the mega solar flare is mega enough you might get a few extra gold atoms. Think of the inflation!

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

#148

Post by hughes »

brianpgordon wrote: post #123
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…

Frame this and put it on your wall- https://i.imgur.com/tct42F0.png

Can you mark the exact moment the ruling was made public? Could this image contain evidence of trading w/ insider knowledge of the SEC ruling?

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

#149

Post by whiskyant »

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…

It dropped before the announcement though.

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

#150

Post by ActsJuvenile »

paulpauper wrote: post #9
JamieF1 wrote: post #2

Yet the price has only dropped around 80 dollars compared to yesterday. Not too bad. For a few minutes it dropped by around 250 dollars but it picked up quickly somehow.

it went up 1000% without the ETF...suggesting anticpation of the ETF only played a minimal role..I would be a dip buyer here

That's why you will remain a pauper.
Post reply on HN