"The Commission believes that, in order to meet this standard, an exchange that lists and trades shares of commodity-trust exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) must, in addition to other applicable requirements, satisfy two requirements that are dispositive in this matter. First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that co…
Which is exactly right, but couldn't the same argument be used against a gold etf?
So if you have a rare-earth metal commodity ETF that can be dug from the ground in conflict areas and have exchange markets in these wild areas, would the SEC deny that commodity ETF then because they wouldn't have surveillance-sharing agreements with those markets?
Yes. At least, that's my reading of this. Surveillance-sharing between markets appears to be a requirement.
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's dropped around 200 at the moment. http://bitcoinity.org/markets
I'm talking about compared to yesterday, not the highs from today. It hasn't dropped by 200 since I posted my comment.
"The Commission believes that, in order to meet this standard, an exchange that lists and trades shares of commodity-trust exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) must, in addition to other applicable requirements, satisfy two requirements that are dispositive in this matter. First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that co…
Which is exactly right, but couldn't the same argument be used against a gold etf?
Isn't gold traded on commodities exchanges, which are regulated?
Note that the CFTC, which regulates commodities futures trading, is (or was?) considering regulating digital currencies:
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 price of bitcoins mean that it's a deflationary currency and deflation is a bad thing as it creates an incentive to not spend. This means that the only real reason to spend Bitcoin or otherwise use it as a payment is for situations where that's the only option and right now, and for the foreseeable future, that means assorted illegal or at best borderline illegal products, which gives it a halo if unrespectability that the Winkelvoss twins are not going to erase. Perhaps a blockchain-based cryptocurrency might in the future resolve these issues, but otherwise it's a doomed product that I wouldn't put a single penny (or watt of household electricity) into.
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.
First time I've even heard of this honestly, but my reaction is sort of "meh". Might have been interesting had it gone through, but I don't see how it changes much of anything that it didn't either. The courts ruling seems fairly reasonable as well in that bitcoin is a relatively unregulated commodity (in as much as a currency not controlled by any government is unregulated) so I can't really say the ruling was unfair. Given a choice between increased regulation of bitcoin and allowing the exchange to go forward vs. keeping the current relatively lax regulation and no exchange, I'm of the opinion no exchange is the better option.
There's also the minor fact that a significant chunk of wallstreet already treats most of the bitcoin markets like commodity exchanges anyway. A significant driver of the massive instability in the bitcoin market is directly attributable to wallstreet treating bitcoin as a commodity. One possible upside of having an actual commodity exchange is that it might have helped stabilize some of that by decoupling the speculation from the actual bitcoin market a little, but I guess we'll never know at this point.
imho it stabilizes and goes back to 1200. It surged from 2011-2014 without the ETF...Bitcoin is seen as a safe haven against global destabilization. A lot of money on the sidelines looking for a buying opportunity that has come
Why is it seen as a safe haven? Like if the internet got broken up, Bitcoin would be even harder to use safely.
it's much more liieky a country will default or fal ito chaos (5 countries nearly did in 2011 during the European debt crisis) than the internet suddenly ceasing to exist or being broken up.