This ruling should win an award for plain English - it's exceptionally well written. (not /s)
You may enjoy the US Supreme Court's writings. Their judgement are usually really well-written and understandable.
SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
301–310 of 357 posts
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#302Earlier 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.
Therese Weiss currency siden something simulator a few years ago. Increased 25 % against the dollar.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/15/swiss-franc-sours-stocks-tank...
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure why you put the word currency in quotes. There have also been many state issued currencies that have done similar - see Thai Baht, Argentine Peso, Russian Ruble, Venezuelan Bolivar etc.
Volatility isn't the issue. Bitcoin isn't technically a currency because it can't currently be used directly to pay public debts or taxes in any nation state. Bitcoin is just another commodity like copper or crude oil.
You have to tell that to the European Court of Justice:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/european-court-justice-ruling-bitco...
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#304This ruling should win an award for plain English - it's exceptionally well written. (not /s)
You may enjoy the US Supreme Court's writings. Their judgement are usually really well-written and understandable.
Funny you should mention it, as legal judgements are not the sort of thing I normally have reason to read. However (copyright troll) Prenda Law's 9th Circuit appeal on sanctions came up in discussions on HN a couple of days ago and, having watched the humorous video of the proceedings, was curious as to the outcome, so tracked down the ruling [1]. It was similarly well written.
As a lay-person I've come to expect convoluted legalese as found in contract terms, but where those are typically designed to bamboozle and obfuscate, or at least keep corporate lawyers employed decoding and negotiating each others writing, judgements and rulings are designed with the opposite goal in mind. If you are potentially creating case-law, it better be clear what you have decided and why.
[1] http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/13-...
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's not stable at all. If you hold USD long term, because of the inflation target of the FED, you'll be able to buy less and less. USD lost a massive amount of value in the previous century alone, despite the massive advances in every field of human activity. https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php
Warning: Division by zero in /home2/sam/public_html/m/calculators/uscompare/relativevalue.php on line 156
[deleted]
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's not stable at all. If you hold USD long term, because of the inflation target of the FED, you'll be able to buy less and less. USD lost a massive amount of value in the previous century alone, despite the massive advances in every field of human activity. https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php
Warning: Division by zero in /home2/sam/public_html/m/calculators/uscompare/relativevalue.php on line 156
You actually want https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ for the index – as https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php which is the calculator results page. (And it was coded by an Ohio State University college student when it was on EH.Net, before being maintained by me as a college student, before being transferred over to Sam Williamson's personal-business site about ten years ago where it is now – a transfer which I always thought was weird but that's academia for you apparently... regardless, it explains the code quality.)
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#307Can someone please explain to me the logic in treating Bitcoin as an investment vehicle? I get that fiat currencies are traded like equity, but this is not that. I also understand that there is a huge potential for short term gains, but the risk is just as great for a total loss.
Bitcoin is a means of transferring wealth. It is a tool, not a commodity. When are people going to stop this speculation and treat it as such?
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#308Can't they just file in another country? I mean, it doesn't really matter where it's traded; any decent bank will give you access to at least the LSE and Xetra in addition to the two big American exchanges.
It matters, because the US retirement funds (401k, IRA) can't invest into some other country's ETFs, correct me if I'm wrong.
This would be news to me.
US 401k / IRA accounts can, and do, buy stocks in a variety of markets, whether directly or through instruments such as NYSEARCA:VEU (also available as the mutual funds VFWAX and VFWIX.) I'm not aware of any special reason why foreign-traded ETFs would get special treatment that foreign-traded stocks don't?
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Volatility isn't the issue. Bitcoin isn't technically a currency because it can't currently be used directly to pay public debts or taxes in any nation state. Bitcoin is just another commodity like copper or crude oil.
You're describing fiat currency, a subset of currency. Historically, a nation state is not a prerequisite for currencies to exist.
Agreed, I actually checked investoepdia and a government issue seems to be part of the agreed upon "modern" definition it seems.
Re: SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]
#310Here'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…
How is Bitcoin significantly different from gold? I suppose gold does get used for something.
Bitcoin is a better medium of exchange than gold. It's trivially divisible, it can be checked against fraud and counterfeiting with a quick electronic test, and it can be sent around the world in minutes without the expenses usually associated with armed escort. If you're paying some random person in Venezuela a two or three figure sum, Bitcoin is better than gold, and probably more anonymous.
Gold is probably a better store of value than bitcoin. It's not a great one, mind you (the price is still too volatile). Its security can also be assured with physical protections that are easier for a layman to understand than bitcoin's electronic protections. Bitcoin has a small but nonzero chance of a total collapse in its value which gold will not face until widespread exploitation of asteroid-based mineral resources is commonplace.
Neither are effective units of account.