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

Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#31

Post by kelthuzad »

mrguyorama wrote: post #22
kelthuzad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the line is intentionally fuzzy it doesn't make sense for them to lie about how the line is supposedly clear, because lying tends to diminish the trust and credibility of the SEC. I still don't buy this explanation regardless, because it makes navigating the space impossible.

It's weird, because that line has been in place for decades, and the financial industry has mostly had no problems complying, yet a bunch of script kiddies trying to get rich are finding it oh so difficult to stay on the right side of the line? Ain't that just the darndest thing.

The line seems to be unclear and fuzzy as stated by others, which will naturally cause problems with compliance, but you clearly have a personal axe to grind so I'm not gonna entertain that.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#32

Post by andy81 »

f001 wrote: post #4
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

Re: existence of an ETF, it’s the only way to “hold” BTC (or ETH) in an account with tax advantages (such as TFSA or RRSP in Canada, equivalent to Roth IRA and 401K in the US respectively).

Why would a government want to subsidise cryptocurrency with tax advantages?

Proponents think it will collapse the dollar and bankrupt all governments.

Opponents think it's negative-sum and the sooner cryptocurrency dies the better for industries that actually create value.

Either way it's a (mild) attack on effective government and civilization more generally. The less subsidies for traders the better, from the perspective of a currently-influential government.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#33

Post by matthewdgreen »

andy81 wrote: post #32
f001 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: existence of an ETF, it’s the only way to “hold” BTC (or ETH) in an account with tax advantages (such as TFSA or RRSP in Canada, equivalent to Roth IRA and 401K in the US respectively).

Why would a government want to subsidise cryptocurrency with tax advantages? Proponents think it will collapse the dollar and bankrupt all governments. Opponents think it's negative-sum and the sooner cryptocurrency dies the better for industries that actually create value. Either way it's a (mild) attack on effective government and civilization more generally. The less subsidies for traders the better, from the pers…

I think the argument is that if the government does not want to extend this subsidy to certain assets, Congress can pass laws excluding them. The current set of laws doesn’t necessarily give the SEC the authority to unilaterally decide broad questions about which types of assets are “bad for society,” and the SEC has to work within the legal framework it was given. But obviously I’m not a lawyer.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#34

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

f001 wrote: post #4
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #2

I'm about as "anti crypto" as they come, and I find the whole need/purpose for a Bitcoin spot ETF to be completely baffling (and I suspect most actual crypto enthusiasts would agree), but this seems like the right decision to me. I specifically agreed with this comment: "The SEC has been getting blasted for its regulation-by-enforcement approach to crypto." I understand the SEC's hostility to crypto, but what I don't…

Re: existence of an ETF, it’s the only way to “hold” BTC (or ETH) in an account with tax advantages (such as TFSA or RRSP in Canada, equivalent to Roth IRA and 401K in the US respectively).

At least in the US, this is just false. It's definitely possible to hold Bitcoin (and other property) in an IRA.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#35

Post by FlyingAvatar »

googlryas wrote: post #10
fjalakgneixow wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a other reason to hold spot ETF, it is another way to hold crypto custodially and might give you a way to bet on Bitcoin without fear of a wrench attack

Wouldn't the wrench attack in this instance just make you type your password to your broker, sell the ETF, and then transfer the money to some third party bank account?

You have some possible recourse if someone steals your securities without your authorization.

The reason why it's more appealing for criminals to do it with crypto is that claw-backs are essentially impossible.

Re: Grayscale was unreasonably denied its Bitcoin ETF, court rules

#36

Post by drcongo »

divs1210 wrote: post #9
drcongo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess would be they don't have anyone in-house who understands it all well enough to write clear guidance.

The SEC chief is Gary Gensler who used to teach a Cryptocurrency course at Harvard...

Oh! Then my guess was terrible!
Post reply on HN