> What the SEC was after when they denied the winklevoss ETF was a way to confirming that they could audit all bitcoin transactions on the applicable exchanges,

> What the SEC was after when they denied the winklevoss ETF was a way to confirming that they could audit all bitcoin transactions on the applicable exchanges, and following from that, the identities of all the exchange participants. I don't think that's accurate, unless you're using a strange sense of the word "audit". The SEC's criticism seemed mainly to focus on the fact that the exchanges lacked controls to prevent price manipulation, and lacked oversight by regulators (not just the SEC) to ensure those controls were in place and effective. The constituent exchanges are listed here [1], basically the list you posted without Bitfinex or OKCoin.com. > Interesting that these are cash settled vs being settled in bitcoin. I guess that speaks as to who they expect to use these instruments. This seems an odd decision to me as well, especially since Bitcoin is almost a textbook commodity. I guess they are afraid that there could be a short squeeze if the existing exchange can't handle a greatly increased volume, but trusting that the exchanges can provide sufficient liquidity is a requirement to use their pricing data as well, otherwise you can get manipulation on the other end. [1] http://www.cmegroup.com/education/brr-brti-constituent-exchanges-criteria.html http://www.cmegroup.com/education/brr-brti-constituent-excha...