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

181–190 of 357 posts

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

#181

Post by dragonwriter »

johnyzee wrote: post #141
thinkloop wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Unfortunately for them, the SEC, quite reasonably, requires more than one regulated market to exist for the underlying commodity

From the ruling, it doesn't really seem that was an issue. That Gemini does very little of the US and an utterly miniscule amount ogmthr global bitcoin trade made the surveillance agreement with Gemini insufficient, but a single-but-dominant regulated exchange would probably be sufficient.

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

#182

Post by sanswork »

drcross wrote: post #167
sanswork wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When Greece went bankrupt, life was much easier for anyone with Bitcoin than for anyone without it. How? Bitcoin atms were basically non-existent there and from what I read on /r/bitcoin at the time from Greeks no one there was accepting it in stores.

There were capital controls restricting more than 100 euro worth of withdrawals from banks per day. Sure it's not helping you if you are buying a coffee but if it's saving parts of your pension that you worked your whole life to earn then it becomes very important.

This is a non-answer.

>There were capital controls restricting more than 100 euro worth of withdrawals from banks per day.

Yes and bitcoin didn't help this since the ways to get cash for your bitcoin involved international transfers which exposed you to those restrictions.

>Sure it's not helping you if you are buying a coffee but if it's saving parts of your pension that you worked your whole life to earn then it becomes very important.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question above. Could you expand on it some more?

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

#183

Post by dragonwriter »

kolinko wrote: post #109
thinkloop wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> You'd need to force all the unregulated exchanges to close down

No, you'd just need for the regulated exchanges to control a substantial share of the total volume of trade, which could happen by shift in trader preferences, unregulated exchanges becoming regulated, or, yes, unregulated exchanges shutting down.

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

#184

Post by owenversteeg »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #97
paulpauper wrote: post #28

This is the same committee that approved VXX and UVXX ,which have lost 99.999% of their value There is an OTC fund that holds Bitcoin...but at a large premium to NAV

VXX and UVXY buy and hold contracts in a contango futures market. They are always going to decrease over long time periods. That is their design.

People that don't understand VXX talking about VXX is one of the funniest things on the entire Internet. For some good laughs, take a look at the comments section on this post: https://sixfigureinvesting.com/2013/04/how-does-vxx-work/

A choice quote from elsewhere on the Internet: "Write call spreads, collect $$$ when they expire... this worthless stock is a goldmine!"

I have no words.

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

#185

Post by dragonwriter »

dnautics wrote: post #170
st3v3r wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you spun a roulette wheel and lost?

he lost even though it landed on the correct color.

> he lost even though it landed on the correct color.

On a later spin than the one he bet on. Which, you know, happens in roulette all the time.

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

#186

Post by 15155 »

paulpauper wrote: post #28

This is the same committee that approved VXX and UVXX ,which have lost 99.999% of their value There is an OTC fund that holds Bitcoin...but at a large premium to NAV

> This is the same committee that approved VXX and UVXX

All of the popular volatility ETFs/ETNs are traded according to SEC regulation.

> which have lost 99.999% of their value

Did you read the prospectus? Leverage isn't free. This is by design.

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

#187

Post by Meekro »

jbmorgado wrote: post #11

As usual in the bitcoin universe we are going to get a lot of people trying to explain you why something they were saying it would be so great for bitcoin until 1h ago, is actually a very bad thing for bitcoin and that this was actually the best possible scenario.

Can you point to someone who said one hour ago that the ETF is good for bitcoin, and is now saying that the ETF is bad for bitcoin?

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

#188

Post by peterhadlaw »

hughes wrote: post #148
brianpgordon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is an incredibly interesting observation. I wonder if this has shown in other non-BTC graphs as well

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

#189

Post by askmike »

slg wrote: post #173
baddox wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It clearly reduces some of the potential future value of Bitcoin, and predictions of future value are baked into the current market price. I guess you could consider that under your definition of "speculative investment bubble," but it really applies to any market price of anything.

The only way it reduces its future potential value is by making it harder to speculate on its future potential value. Nothing about the currency actually changed.

While technically nothing changed, the SEC approving an ETF directly tied to bitcoin would have changed how Bitcoin is perceived by a lot of people.

> Nothing about the currency actually changed.

You can say this about about everything: "while nothing about the pound changed, brexit caused the price to go down."

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

#190

Post by dragonwriter »

st3v3r wrote: post #166
keketi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or rushing to buy.

I mean, by definition, it has to be both.

It has to be both for trading to take place, but either on its own could overwhelm an insufficiently robust platform.
Post reply on HN