4 ms·
I would guess that Grayscale and others have thought of that, and have written it into their contracts with customers. I'd also bet they're the ones who pocket
by jamesgreenleaf 5y ago
I would guess that Grayscale and others have thought of that, and have written it into their contracts with customers. I'd also bet they're the ones who pocket the proceeds from any forks.
- wmf 5y agoI decided to look this up. "If a permanent fork, similar to Ethereum, were to occur to bitcoin, the Trust would hold equal amounts of the original and the new bitcoin as a result. In consultation with the Index Provider, the Sponsor would select a Bitcoin Network (and therefore a single version of bitcoin). The Sponsor would simultaneously isolate the bitcoin on the Bitcoin Network that it did not select to segregate it from the Trust’s Bitcoin Holdings. The Sponsor’s intention would be to distribute to its Shareholders the bitcoin on the Bitcoin Network that it did not select. Therefore, the Trust would only hold one version of bitcoin. It is uncertain whether the value of the distribution of the bitcoin on the Bitcoin Network that the Sponsor did not select would equal the change in the value of the Shares. Consequently, a permanent fork could materially and adversely affect the value of the Shares." Pretty loose policy. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1588489/000119312517013693/d157414ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1588489/000119312517...