3 ms·

You can buy ETFs for all sorts of commodities, currencies and securities. No matter which umbrella bitcoin falls under, there are numerous etfs that can be be c

by toolz 4y ago

You can buy ETFs for all sorts of commodities, currencies and securities. No matter which umbrella bitcoin falls under, there are numerous etfs that can be be compared, right? Why is bitcoin or crypto special here? Is it the SECs job to make judgements on the assets that want to be included in the exchange?

woodruffw 4y ago
> Is it the SECs job to make judgements on the assets that want to be included in the exchange? Yes, and that is the crux of the argument: the Exchange Act requires the SEC to evaluate ETPs for the possibility of "fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices." In other words: the SEC lacks confidence that approving a spot ETF for Bitcoin would not further advance manipulation and/or fraudulent behavior in the Bitcoin market.
- toolz 4y ago
  No, it's their job to protect consumers. It is not their responsibility to make moral judgements on assets.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    There is no moral judgment here. "Fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices" is the language of systemic and individual risk, not a moral statement. (You will note that the SEC is more than happy to allow ETFs that specialize in petrochemicals or defense contractors; there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a morally driven decision.)
steveBK123 4y ago
Spot commodity linked ETNs have well regulated custodians physically holding assets in vaults. SEC probably has concerns about Grayscales ability to securely hold custody of bitcoin. Given "All my apes gone" and other recent debacles, this isn't too surprising.
davidgerard 4y ago
They've repeatedly set out the problems with the bitcoin market that make it unsuitable for an ETF, responding to ETF applications over the past two years. Every new ETF application has just blithely ignored the previous reasons for refusal, and Grayscale ignored them too. At this point, the blockchain industry is just playing dumb and pretending not to understand.

by toolz 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago

> Is it the SECs job to make judgements on the assets that want to be included in the exchange? Yes, and that is the crux of the argument: the Exchange Act requires the SEC to evaluate ETPs for the possibility of "fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices." In other words: the SEC lacks confidence that approving a spot ETF for Bitcoin would not further advance manipulation and/or fraudulent behavior in the Bitcoin market.

toolz 4y ago
No, it's their job to protect consumers. It is not their responsibility to make moral judgements on assets.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  There is no moral judgment here. "Fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices" is the language of systemic and individual risk, not a moral statement. (You will note that the SEC is more than happy to allow ETFs that specialize in petrochemicals or defense contractors; there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a morally driven decision.)

steveBK123 4y ago

Spot commodity linked ETNs have well regulated custodians physically holding assets in vaults. SEC probably has concerns about Grayscales ability to securely hold custody of bitcoin. Given "All my apes gone" and other recent debacles, this isn't too surprising.

davidgerard 4y ago

They've repeatedly set out the problems with the bitcoin market that make it unsuitable for an ETF, responding to ETF applications over the past two years. Every new ETF application has just blithely ignored the previous reasons for refusal, and Grayscale ignored them too. At this point, the blockchain industry is just playing dumb and pretending not to understand.