75 ms·

Spot Bitcoin ETF receives official approval from the SEC

• fancyfredbot 3y ago
  Satoshi's dream of a decentralised ledger finally reaches its ultimate form of a centralised list maintained by the DTC. Rejoice!
  • ur-whale 3y ago
    While I agree with the sentiment, please remember that actually buying BTC directly and doing self-custody is still an option.
    • fancyfredbot 3y ago
      So much more hassle though. Nobody's going to bother with that now - what's the point?
      • treyd 3y ago
        UX with hardware wallets (which you can get for like $60) is pretty decent these days and it eliminates a lot of stress in the workflows you typically use. There's still a huge room for improvement with seedphrase backup and "social recovery", but it's easier now than it's been in the past.
        • lxgr 3y ago
          How does the average person back these up in a secure, yet durable way that lasts decades and can easily be discovered by (and only by) their ultimate heirs?
          • akgoel 3y ago
            Passphrase in a bank safe deposit box.
          • jekrb 3y ago
            I think everyone will have different behavior sec for their funds, with the options now ranging from simply committing a 12 or 24 word seed phrase to memory and buying ETF shares. There is shamir secret splitting, multisig, MPC, secure enclaves with biometerics, etc... There will be apps like Fuse wallet: https://www.fusewallet.com/ https://www.fusewallet.com/ There will be phones like Saga: https://solanamobile.com/hardware https://solanamobile.com/hardware I think how one handles their wallets will be much like how people make their espressos. Some will just stick k-cup in a machine and hit a button, others will become full-blown coffee enthusiasts that carefully measure their beans, de-static their grinds, and extract for the exact right amount of time.
            • lxgr 3y ago
              > simply committing a 12 or 24 word seed phrase to memory That's absolutely out of the question for almost any human being, especially given the timeframes involved. > There will be phones like Saga [...] There will be apps like Fuse wallet: [...] Again, we're talking about a timeframe of decades. How many of these will even still boot up after that amount of time? None of these seem safe to just throw in a bank safe deposit box. > make their espressos. Some will just stick k-cup in a machine and hit a button I'm really not a coffee connoisseur by any meaning of the word, but even I know that what comes out of a k-cup machine is brewed coffee, not espresso.
              • k12sosse 3y ago
                > I'm really not a coffee connoisseur by any meaning of the word, but even I know that what comes out of a k-cup machine is brewed coffee, not espresso. No, that's his passphrase
              • jekrb 3y ago
                My point is there are thousands of ways to handle your wallets, I don't think there will be one average way. The ETF is probably the equivalent of this "espresso style" k-cup https://www.keurig.com/Beverages/Dark-Roast/Espresso-Style-Coffee/p/espresso-style-coffee-cafe-bustelo-k-cup#24_CT https://www.keurig.com/Beverages/Dark-Roast/Espresso-Style-C...
          • transcriptase 3y ago
            Same as anything else really: A sheet of paper and a safety deposit box. You die, your heir or executor takes the appropriate paperwork to the bank, and then they get the contents of the box.
            • lxgr 3y ago
              How many people even have a safety deposit box? Many banks don't offer them anymore, and in some countries they have a disturbing tendency of getting robbed, with absolutely no recourse for the depositors (since contents are usually unverified and uninsured).
              • transcriptase 3y ago
                Then buy a large fire safe, bolt it to your floor inside a closet, and fill it with 10 lb barbell plates until it requires a forklift to move. If your threat model includes someone inside your home with power tools and you can’t trust a bank… you might want to consider moving.
                • lxgr 3y ago
                  Given that people probably don't arrange their life around the ability to safeguard physical assets, I think you've just given several good arguments against self-custody: Many people don't own a home. Not all of those that do want to expose themselves to the liability of storing valuables there. The safety situation between homes even within the US varies greatly, and even more so internationally. Banks with safety deposit boxes aren't ubiquitous. If it works for you, great! I'm just saying that you might be in the minority here.
                • fragmede 3y ago
                  That's cool. What do I do when I move every few years because I'm a renter and can't afford to own a home in this economy?
                  • transcriptase 3y ago
          • treyd 3y ago
            That's what the "social recovery" ideas are for. It's a framework for doing key management across multiple trusted parties under controlled conditions in the hypothetical case your primary keys are inaccessible. You could have your executor hold a key, for example.
      • brucethemoose2 3y ago
        I love this scenario. "Why is Bitcoin a great asset?" "Because its the future of currency! Its great and everyone will use it!" "Then why don't you just get it directly?" "Uh, its too much of a hassle. For me. A professional finance worker."
      • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        > Nobody's going to bother with that now - what's the point? This is actually a great comment that I think applies well to the crypto world as a whole, even if that wasn't your original intent.
        • fancyfredbot 3y ago
          I will own up to trolling slightly to draw attention to the fact that exhanging bitcoin as a digital currency is not something which would occur to most people who own it. The only thing most people will do with their bitcoin is exchange it for fiat.
          • tempestn 3y ago
            That and hodl it, hoping it'll someday be worth more.
      • bob_malrey 3y ago
        But what’s the point of Bitcoin then? They might as well put anything in these ETFs and it’d be the same thing then: the flat rocks in my garden are limited in number and very scarce, wanna put some in an etf?
        • rkagerer 3y ago
          Maybe, but my rocks are better, faster, and more scalable! Frankly we could probably get our rock ETF's approved more quickly. Regardless of how you feel about Bitcoin, it's not (or shouldn't be) the SEC's place to play nanny and dictate the particular assets/commodities/etc. in which you're allowed to invest your money. Incidentally even one of SEC commissioners agrees https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023 https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-spot-bit...
          • dovakin 3y ago
            Well as a matter of fact btc is none of these things compared to any other crypto, which are themselves not particularly any of these things. But I agree with the fact it’s not the SEC’s role to tell us the merit of btc. I do have some worries on the Tether scam still going on for example though, which has been manipulating BTC for years.
            • rvnx 3y ago
              No matter if it is a scam or not, at the end it worked. Similar to banks which don't have enough capital. Now Tether owns tons of money, and can buy treasuries that bring few % of interests, and these interests are not paid back to USDT holders. As a result, overtime, they'll be able to fill-in any potential gaps or money accidentally lost.
              • teh_infallible 3y ago
                Impressive, isn’t it? They bootstrapped a stablecoin! Edit: spelling
        • 3y ago
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • rkagerer 3y ago
        It's not really that hard, and the tools are continually evolving to be more user friendly (e.g. Last year Trezor added hardware support to simplify Shamir backup). Of course the ability to hit "buy now" in the same marketplace you manage all your other investments is pretty low friction and I'm sure this decision will bring fresh investment out of the woodwork.
      • houseatrielah 3y ago
        Save approx. 1% on fees annually is the point.
      • miohtama 3y ago
        Everyone who does not have access to the US financial system will keep doing it. Which is 7/8B people on this planet.
        • lxgr 3y ago
          Are you missing some other somewhat relevant financial systems here by any chance? The EU (higher population than the US) has had Bitcoin ETFs for a while now.
      • TheDudeMan 3y ago
        Your question is equivalent to asking the point of bitcoin (avoid centralization).
    • trompetenaccoun 3y ago
      The mob always wins in the end, but I never understood why many on HN have been so cynical about Bitcoin. At least Satoshi tried, whoever they were. They gave a gift to the world, but it sadly got co-opted and taken over first by small-time grifters and now by the big boys at Wall Street. In hindsight it was probably bound to happen, because money buys influence and a casual decentralized group of coders can never win against banks and governments. Anyway, digital gold is still better than nothing. It's still an innovation as a store of value, even if the payments idea is basically history (some Bitcoin maxis just don't understand that yet). Also Bitcoin has inspired a whole ecosystem of other blockchains. If you want the original concept of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, Monero is probably one of the best to check out currently. Governments are btw currently going after Monero, because unlike the common myth about Bitcoin, it actually enables anonymous payments - just like cash. And so of course we can't have that. Multiple exchanges already announced they were forced to delist XMR.
      • loceng 3y ago
        It's only worth something if someone else values it vs. physical gold.
        • snapcaster 3y ago
          Of course, this is also true of physical gold though. If all non-industrial use of gold were to end the price would collapse
          • losteric 3y ago
            That's a tautology.... The aesthetic and industrial applications of gold are what makes it intrinsically valuable - that being the key distinction, and distinct from Bitcoin. If you ignore the useful aspects, of course it's no different from any useless thing.
        • sapphicsnail 3y ago
          Gold's value is mostly disconnected from it's utility. We've just decided it's valuable for a longer period of time so less people question it.
    • maxioatic 3y ago
      But then I have to pay taxes on it. Time to full send my retirement accounts into these ETFs so I can retire early. /s Actually though I might consider allocating a tiny percentage (1-3%) to these. Seems like fairly low risk with enough upside, but who knows.
      • siwatanejo 3y ago
        What do you mean? self-custodying BTC is still unrealized gains until you sell, so no tax either.
        • ghshephard 3y ago
          BTC ETF in in a 401K/IRA can be contributed, grow, or possibly be withdrawn tax-free depending on how you set it up. Coinbase reports your gains and you owe taxes on them. (Don't think Coinbase has an IRA/401K option for custody. Yet.)
        • maxioatic 3y ago
          I was referring to the capital gains tax you pay for selling BTC on an exchange. I was thinking specifically about Roth IRAs, where any gains are tax free, but a 401k or similar would work too.
      • anonu 3y ago
        These are cash creates not in kind creates. So there is no escaping taxes. You will be paying capital gains just by holding spot Bitcoin ETFs Edit: after further research it appears that the cash create mechanism doesn't cause a tax event for shareholders as it does with mutual funds. See https://www.grayscale.com/blog/legal-topics/addressing-potential-tax-considerations-for-investors-in-spot-bitcoin-etfs https://www.grayscale.com/blog/legal-topics/addressing-poten... We will have to see how every Bitcoin ETF is structured. YMMV depending on this structure and how you get taxed.
        • tempestn 3y ago
          I think the parent is talking about buying the ETF inside a tax sheltered account.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • factorialboy 3y ago
    Sarcasm aside, this is the ultimate endorsement. The likes of Blackrock could use BTC as a hedge if the Feds keep on printing USD under political pressure.
    • bob_malrey 3y ago
      How would that be better than holding gold? Fees for large transactions of btc are getting higher than the cost of physically moving gold anyway, and the chances to lose it or get it stolen are higher.
      • shawabawa3 3y ago
        Fees for storing and moving bitcoin are absolutely not approaching the costs for gold Try moving $10M of gold from one end of the world to another for under $100
        • nikolay 3y ago
          Well, how about trying to move $200 in Bitcoin - it's the most expensive funds transfer. You cannot "move" $50 as it's cost-prohibitive!
          • mratsim 3y ago
            Try moving $50 in a private bank. Fees for stocks start at $200.
            • nikolay 3y ago
              I do it every week. It's free (Zelle), or it's incredibly cheap. It has predictable cost and timeframe, too, unlike Bitcoin, with no customer service and no way to remediate errors and fraud! So, even if I pay to the banks, it covers people and insurance - unlike with Bitcoin, which just burns fossil fuels so that Chinese miners can get richer and richer stealing subsidized electricity!
  • nullc 3y ago
    Some people own bitcoin only because they expect its value to increase due to demand from others. There is nothing inherently invalid about this-- speculation occurs in all kinds of valuable assets and it serves the public good of creating a demand buffer. For those parties, bitcoin's general properties are not very relevant and a centeralized list maintained by DTCC may well better serve their particular needs. To the extent that it does: more power to them!
    • miohtama 3y ago
      Note that the same is for gold. Most people own gold ETFs, not physical gold, and most gold’s value is speculation (not industrial use).
      • vasco 3y ago
        Are there any asset classes in public markets that aren't driven primarily by speculation?
        • nullc 3y ago
          Sure, any kind of relatively short duration dividend/interest yielder, to give an example. Though it's possible to make extra money with t-bills by trading against rates, no one can say thats a primary driver. Likewise for much of the bond market.
      • FactKnower69 3y ago
        Gold did at one point in history have an actual use case apart from speculation and being pretty: it is almost uniquely suitable as currency and store of value (along with silver) because it is hard to create, easy to purify and non-destructively measure the purity of, fungible, and can be easily split and recombined into units of any desired weight as far as having an actual historic or present day use case, blockchain snake oil is still in search of a problem only it can solve to this day
  • anonu 3y ago
    Spot on. DeFi relies heavily on CeFi.
  • CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Cryptocurrency still works the same as it ever did. I would be more concerned that the average bitcoin transactions costs over $11 dollars (down from over $37 USD a month ago) https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#3m https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...
    • earnesti 3y ago
      What about Lightning Network?
      • thefourthchime 3y ago
        That's off chain and should be nearly free
        • SamPatt 3y ago
          If only. It's not off chain when you open a channel, rebalance a channel, or close a channel. On-chain Fees need to be paid at every step of the way. High BTC fees impede the Lightning Network from being a true scaling solution, an obvious fact that has been dismissed for many years by adherents of absurdly small block sizes.
        • ric2b 3y ago
          It is nearly free.
      • CyberDildonics 3y ago
        If you want an actual transaction on the actual chain that can actually be spent then you need to pay the giant bitcoin transaction fee. Why would anyone put up with the extreme convoluted nonsense of the lightning network when they could use any other cryptocurrency and have almost no fees because they aren't constraining their block sizes to sell a second layer? There is no technical reason to do this, it was purely a political propaganda based move. Before you respond with "but disk" or "but network" or "but cpu" look at the actual bitcoin throughput (about 700KB every 10 minutes) and look at how much hard drive space you can buy for the cost of one transaction. Then realize that individuals don't even need to sync with the chain to use cryptocurrencies. This is a well worn road.
  • mrinfinite 3y ago
    Satoshi Nakamoto means Central Intelligence Agency LITERALLY!!!! Just the facts
  • beambot 3y ago
    The bigger irony will be when the US Government steps in and seizes all BTC & ETH within their reach so that they can create their very own crypto-backed central bank digital currency (CBDC) as the new "gold standard" a la Executive Order 6102 in 1933: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 Incidentally: When you look at currencies (and governments) on long enough time scales, you'll see that they're pretty ephemeral -- e.g. very few currencies or governments around today were around in (roughly) the same form 200 years ago. I consider it a benefit that we might have a way of persisting wealth that doesn't involve rent extraction or digging shiny metal out of the ground -- though I admit to not being a fan of the "wastefulness" of PoW in the midst of energy decarbonization. If you want a fun watch: The History of Paper Money on Youtube is a fascinating look at how currencies, banks, central banks, and fiat money all came into existence. TLDR: Our "modern" approach to money was a giant "too big to fail" ponzi scheme largely perpetrated (multiple times) by John Law. Wild. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZkP2b-4vo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nZkP2b-4vo
    • david_shi 3y ago
      If they try to pull this off, human civilization will have entered full 1984 territory
      • beambot 3y ago
        My grandfather said something similar about the actions taken in 1933... though a bit more colorful & without the reference to 1984.
        • david_shi 3y ago
          I have to believe that history isn't just cyclical, and that somehow we breakthrough these cycles of violence. Maybe that's called faith.
  • neodypsis 3y ago
    I think you misunderstand the purpose of ETFs.
  • dang 3y ago
    "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • fancyfredbot 3y ago
      Genuinely mortified. I'll resist the urge in future. Thanks for keeping HN such a great site Dan.
      • dang 3y ago
        Appreciated! Btw I know comments like that are fun when talking to friends or whatever. We just have that guideline because of how they influence discussion on a large internet forum...not for any ethical reason or anything like that.
• tnel77 3y ago
  I’m only here to see the acrobats continuing to claim Bitcoin is a fraud, only for criminals, and “going to die any day now.” Have a nice day everyone! What an awesome achievement for the crypto community!
  • johnwheeler 3y ago
    Maybe it’s that it turns morons into financial advisors is why people hate it.
    • olalonde 3y ago
      It's irrational but I believe you are right. See this comment for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31356857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31356857
    • tnel77 3y ago
      There’s undeniably a lot of plain stupid luck where some people bought, forgot, and now it’s worth millions. I feel like every asset has people who blindly love it (Tesla for example) and will insufferably spout their nonsense to anyone that’ll listen just to drive up the price of their favorite stock/crypto/whatever. I don’t think there’s anything we can do to avoid that.
    • LAMike 3y ago
      Maybe because its the best performing asset of the past decade? Just a guess
      • johnwheeler 3y ago
        Yeah LAMike. Get you a bitcoin.
        • LAMike 3y ago
          Already ahead of you Mr. Wheeler Hope you can buy yourself one when you grow up!
• jcuenod 3y ago
  For real this time?
  • awfml 3y ago
    for real this time (https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023 https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bi...)
  • paulpauper 3y ago
    not technically an ETF. an ETP
    • ikmckenz 3y ago
      An ETF is a type of ETP
      • bondarchuk 3y ago
        all poodles are dogs...
• wslh 3y ago
  Actual document: https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/nysearca/2024/34-99306.pdf https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/nysearca/2024/34-99306.p... and archived one, just in case you receive 404: https://twitter.com/coinfabrik/status/1745192170942800341 https://twitter.com/coinfabrik/status/1745192170942800341
  • jbverschoor 3y ago
    Also got 404, so thought it was fake..
  • olalonde 3y ago
    HODL and BRRR... Nice.
  • helsinkiandrew 3y ago
    SEC Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw's dissenting statement is also worth a read https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/crenshaw-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023 https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/crenshaw-statement-spot-b... particularly the section "The Global Spot Markets Underlying the Bitcoin ETPs are Marred by Fraud and Manipulation, Concentrated, and Without Adequate Oversight
    • hanniabu 3y ago
      Yet they approved futures
• moose_man 3y ago
  This is so sad. Crypto (including Bitcoin) serves as a money funnel while takes from economically insecure middle class retail investors and pours it into the pockets of the tremendously wealthy.
  • mmvvddhh 3y ago
    Yeah just like USD.
    • trompetenaccoun 3y ago
      Not exactly the same. Fiat currency like the USD redistribute a lot of wealth from users into the pockets of the central bank/government through unlimited base inflation, which they control. Bitcoin does not have that, its inflation rate is fixed by the protocol and only ever falling. In April this year it will fall to 0.875%.
      • RandomLensman 3y ago
        Not sure I'd call that an inflation rate as it doesn't factor in any baskets of goods and services.
        • trompetenaccoun 3y ago
          Monetary inflation (i.e. in it's purest form increasing the monetary base by "printing" more) is not necessarily the same as what you probably mean by 'inflation rate'. You're probably talking about price inflation, using CPI. Those are linked but not the same. Bitcoin "prints" around 1.74% currently and it's going to drop below 1% in April. The USD, although one of the more stable fiat currencies, is worlds apart from that. Looking at official Fed data you can see the base has been inflated by massive amounts just in the past 3 years alone! An increase of way over 60%! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGMBASE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGMBASE
          • RandomLensman 3y ago
• schemescape 3y ago
  In the hypothetical case that a Bitcoin ETF gets hacked and its wallet(s) emptied, what happens? Is it any different from, say, a gold ETF having its physical gold stolen?
  • yieldcrv 3y ago
    this has been a major part of the application revisions, you’ll have to read each ETF before you purchase, or, you know, contact a financial advisor before every trade lol
  • bnchrch 3y ago
    You would hope they have good security practises + purchase insurance. But I have a feeling like it will take an incident like the one you describe to happen first before that becomes mandatory.
    • xwolfi 3y ago
      When Cathie Wood was asked by Bloomberg, she called 21Shares staff who replied they have cold wallets. She didnt reply "oh ofc we're insured"... 21Shares staff didnt either... Expect a shitstorm in case of hack (or lost keys) with these clowns.
  • postcynical 3y ago
    and what would happen during/after a fork?
    • ur-whale 3y ago
      > and what would happen during a fork? Now, that is a very interesting question. If said ETF did their homework properly, their handling of a fork should be described in detail in their prospectus. Not that I would ever buy a BTC ETF since it precisely negates what I believe Bitcoin to be useful for, but if I had to, I'd pick the one that would convert the forked coins back to BTC immediately after the fork. If enough ETFs actually promise to apply this policy in their statutes, that would make it quite a hump to get over for a would-be forker, knowing the immediate price hit the forked coin would take because of the ETF immediately dumping it.
• yieldcrv 3y ago
  all it took was a judge declaring the SEC’s prior view toward bitcoin ETFs to be arbitrary and capricious and the SEC thinking about appealing but realizing this absolutely based SCOTUS would delete the SEC like Thanos if they ever get taken beyond circuit appeals court by the private sector markets win
  • ur-whale 3y ago
    based -> biased ? [EDIT]: looks like no, saying "a based judge" actually has meaning in English.
    • wmf 3y ago
      No https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=based https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=based
    • miohtama 3y ago
      No, it's slang. (used to express approval or respect, especially in response to a social media post): Based. At least somebody shows some spine on this forum.
  • kasey_junk 3y ago
    The Supreme Court heard arguments in November on the constitutionality of the SEC.
    • yieldcrv 3y ago
      regarding how the SEC circumvents the 7th amendment in how they fine people regarding whether Congress even delegated that discretion to the SEC whether the 7th amendment circumvention stands or not and regarding whether their in-house, on-staff, judges can be exempt from removal there are plenty more deeper questions to bring before the supreme court, about this specific agency. this SCOTUS has expressed interest in taking out the remaining vestiges of the New Deal, which were mostly found unconstitutional in the late 1930s, with the remaining things simply being difficult to find standing for - hard to take to court. The SEC's main behaviors being one of those things. this SCOTUS has expressed interest in how the interstate commerce clause is interpreted at all, which is also a core tenant of the New Deal. Could possibly reshape our entire relationship with the Federal Government. The SEC would take the biggest L while the capital markets would be fine.
• monero-xmr 3y ago
  The death of crypto was written endlessly on HN. The investor activity is much more bullish over last 6 months. I think the only hot VC right now in all of tech is AI and blockchain. Now a lot of people here will be investing in Bitcoin without even knowing it, as their passive fund investments begin accumulating. The sweet victory against the no coiners.
  • ESTheComposer 3y ago
    People in HN are in a massive bubble; you see it with other topics too. It's nice to look here for some tech sentiment and interesting article sometimes, but for most cutting edge stuff this forum is always full of naysayers.
    • pixelpoet 3y ago
      I've learnt not to talk about crypto or computer graphics (?!) here, so much vitriol.
      • codetrotter 3y ago
        > computer graphics That’s a shame :( computer graphics is a very interesting topic and I always love to read things about it
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • miohtama 3y ago
      A lot of people in software industry have tendency to reflexive negativity*, as people selected to become software developer often have a tendency to seeing things in their own limited scope, and not the in the scope of others. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reflexive-negativity-jess-maccallum/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reflexive-negativity-jess-mac...
    • rvz 3y ago
      Well, HN is so deep in their own reality distortion bubble that they are still not noticing that "AGI" is actually about lining some-else's pockets over a sci-fi dream sold to them through hype after trampling over laws and regulations. Those on HN who believed that such a complete ban on crypto was feasible were always delusional. The cat is out of the bag for both AI and crypto, but in the end, the legal system always gets them to pay up and the regulators for both AI or crypto will get them as well. No escaping that.
• miohtama 3y ago
  For the Gary Genler's comment (and the opinion of a lot of commenters on Hacker News): > Though we’re merit neutral, I’d note that the underlying assets in the metals ETPs have consumer and industrial uses, while in contrast bitcoin is primarily a speculative, volatile asset that’s also used for illicit activity including ransomware,[4] money laundering,[5] sanction evasion,[6] and terrorist financing.[7] You can find how this was addressed in the approval: > See, e.g., Kling Letter (stating that the bitcoin futures price is beholden to the spot price, and the spot price has always been, and continues to be, manipulated by bad actors); Better Markets Letter I at 2 and 4-9 and Better Markets Letter II at 4-6 (stating that spot bitcoin ETPs are extremely vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors because spot bitcoin markets (1) have a history of artificially inflated trading volumes due to rampant manipulation and wash trading, (2) are highly concentrated, and (3) rely on a select group of individuals and entities to maintain the bitcoin network); Letter from John Palmer, dated Aug. 11, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-028 (stating that 75% of the bitcoin in circulation is controlled by a small minority who use market makers to pump and dump); Daniel Smith Letter (“[t]he history of crypto is a never-ending history of frauds and scams”); Letter from Billy Jensen, dated Sept. 5, 2023, regarding SR- CboeBZX-2023-028 (stating that bitcoin is a digital Ponzi, and that approving a spot ETF “will bring greater unsuspecting fools into the pyramid scheme”); Letter from The Registered Principal, dated Aug. 9, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-038, SR-CboeBZX-2023-040, SR-CboeBZX-2023-042, SR- CboeBZX-2023-044, SR-NASDAQ-2023-016, SR-NASDAQ-2023-019, and SR-NYSEARCA-2023-44 (“[t]here are no verifiable entities or persons as points of ultimate origin of [b]itcoin which makes it very likely to be a major fraud operation”); Letter from Joseph, dated July 18, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX- 2023-044 (“[a] cartel of organized crime and money-launders [sic] actively manipulate the price of [b]itcoin through the use of Tether and other crypto-ponzi schemes”); Letter from Avinash Shenoy, dated Oct. 18, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (stating that manipulation in the bitcoin marketplace has not gone away); Letter from Winston Wood, dated Oct. 19, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (stating that the bitcoin market is manipulated and has a history rife with scams and criminal activity); Letter from Greg Steven, dated Oct. 19, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (“Steven Letter”) (stating that bitcoin is wash traded on platforms outside of U.S. jurisdiction); Letter from Neil Fulton, dated Oct. 20, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (recommending that spot bitcoin ETPs be disapproved until bitcoin wash trading is minimized); Letters from Micah Warren, Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Oregon, dated Oct. 27, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016, and dated Dec. 15, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-072 (“Warren Letters”) (explaining how the bitcoin ledger, which is maintained by for-profit mining entities, could become significantly less diverse and less costly to manipulate). Some commenters also assert that the bitcoin asset itself is a manipulation or fraud. One commenter states that “the complete lack of knowledge of who the operators of the bitcoin network are means that it is impossible to implement sufficient control measures to ensure a fair market that is free from manipulation of both token trades, actions of the operators, or even the fundamental properties of the asset itself.” See Letter from Brandon B., dated Oct. 25, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (“Brandon Letter”), at 4. Another commenter asserts that the questions the Commission has been asking about fraud and manipulation are misguided because “they are predicated on the idea that [b]itcoin is something legitimate which could possibly serve the public interest.” This commenter claims that “[b]itcoin is, and has always been, a form of investment fraud” that should be banned, not regulated. See Letter from Sal > Commission acknowledges these concerns. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, however, the Commission must approve a proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act.61 For the reasons described above, the Commission finds that the Proposals satisfy the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the requirement in Section 6(b)(5)62 that the Exchanges’ rules be designed to “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.”
• boeingUH60 3y ago
  As my Dad told me, anyone investing in crypto is a fool looking to take advantage of another fool. It’s all Greater Fool Theory.
  • ur-whale 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority But I must admit that using your actual dad as the source of authority is quite a stretch.
    • redcobra762 3y ago
      He's not arguing the position as correct because his dad told it to him. He's not arguing the belief at all, he's just stating it. So no, it's not an argument from authority.
      • sharperguy 3y ago
        Given that he didn't provide any further evidence to his claim, I think it seems reasonable to guess that might have been an attempt.
        • redcobra762 3y ago
          More likely he wanted to share with us something his father had said that he felt was relevant.
    • Lambdanaut 3y ago
      Usually an argument from authority doesn't hold any weight, but come on. It's their dad
  • elwell 3y ago
    > anyone investing in crypto FTFY: anyone investing
    • 3y ago
• jbverschoor 3y ago
  Interestingly, the SEC and Gary did not publish any tweet or press release..
  • iceIX 3y ago
    I guess you missed this one? https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023 https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bi...
    • jbverschoor 3y ago
      Ahh.. and there I was, refreshing press releases, and url-hacking to get the latest (2024-4 and then 2024-5) haha
• dpflan 3y ago
  What other products that are as known-to-be-risky-and-associated-with-fraud are backed by an ETF? Genuinely curious what else is out there...
  • jMyles 3y ago
    The world's foremost money launderer is a fund provider for several ETFs, eg: https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B4X9L533 https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B4X9L53...
  • mratsim 3y ago
    Stocks of WeWork?
  • TacticalCoder 3y ago
    > What other products that are as known-to-be-risky-and-associated-with-fraud are backed by an ETF? Government bonds. There were ETFs holding Greek gov bonds for example. Greek cheated to enter the EU (by fudging its numbers, with the help of big accounting firms and banks). And government bonds are known to be risky, seen that throughout times many government have simply grown their public debt and then defaulted. Fun fact: US public debt grew from $33 trillion (with a 't') to $34 trillion in ... drumroll ... 100 days. Woot! P.S: I'm not sure your question is correctly phrased... 3% to 5% of the world's entire GDP is linked to crime. By now it's not even clear if 3% to 5% of all the Bitcoin transactions are linked to crime.
    • dpflan 3y ago
      Your post-script is something to consider. I should've added this comment from the SEC, the entity that just authorized this ETF: """ Though we’re merit neutral, I’d note that the underlying assets in the metals ETPs have consumer and industrial uses, while in contrast bitcoin is primarily a speculative, volatile asset that’s also used for illicit activity including ransomware,[4] money laundering,[5] sanction evasion,[6] and terrorist financing.[7] """ - https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023 https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bi... What other ETF exists for an asset that the SEC closes its statements about like this?
• hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  The fact that Spot Bitcoin ETFs were ever contemplated into existence just shows the general insanity of crypto. After all, if you believe that cryptocurrencies, with "the code is the law" ethos and non-reputable transactions, are the wave of the future, just transact in BTC directly. If you believe crypto is actually too risky to manage individually (e.g. hacked/stolen keys) then you'd want the benefit of something like an ETF to manage your ownership. But buying an ETF that itself just holds crypto assets is either an exercise in futility or a "worst of all worlds" situation. But I guess a middle man needs to make a buck somehow...
  • jMyles 3y ago
    Agreed - I think the little cryptographer in all of us regards this as a sad day. It's going to take real courage to leave the economic systems of predation and extraction behind. Whether or not you think crypto is likely to be a large part of that motion (I do, but some reasonable folks disagree), there's nothing about this action that feels like it's part of it.
  • psychlops 3y ago
    > The fact that Spot Bitcoin ETFs were ever contemplated into existence just shows the general insanity of crypto. Why is it the insanity of crypto? The action is entirely established interests putting a wrapper around crypto. How do you suppose a large fund should purchase bitcoin? They specialize in markets, not wallet management. Many also do not hold their own cash individually and entrust institutions.
    • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      > Many also do not hold their own cash individually and entrust institutions. Because literally the entire point of crypto is to not have to "entrust institution". Like the entire bitcoin protocol is built around the concept of trustlessness. If you're going to start "trusting institutions", you can do away with a huge part of the complexity (and gargantuan energy usage) of Bitcoin.
      • 3y ago
• rastafarigpu 3y ago
  Irony of the millenium! Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to "free" us from the banks, "speculative" finanacial institutions and centralised control? Guess human greed trumps everything!
  • lxgr 3y ago
    Bitcoin was supposed to be available to anyone. By definition, that also includes banks and speculators.
  • ric2b 3y ago
    This is like saying that open source fails its purpose if it is also used by companies.
• hackernudes 3y ago
  The only thing I am concerned about is "paper bitcoin" and rehypothecation. Is there anything published about how ETF entities might prove they have custody of the amount of bitcoin they claim (in other words, proof of reserves)?
  • CyberDildonics 3y ago
    You sign a message with your private key. This has been solved since day 1 of bitcoin's existence.
    • jdewerd 3y ago
      You can prove presence of assets, you can't prove absence of liabilities, and you can't audit the balance sheet without seeing both sides.
      • nullc 3y ago
        You can, but it's not simple in the context of an ETP, due to all the infrastructure in between the parties with an ownership interest and the assets. If we ignore that: Dumbest version: You give everyone a list of all the liabilities. They make sure they are in there themselves. Anyone left out isn't entitled to the assets in an insolvency, so there is an incentive to check. This isn't very efficient, giving everyone the whole list. But make a hash tree with each node carrying a hash and the sum of liabilities below it. Show each user their log2() sized proof. Much more efficient. This leaks information about the distribution of ownership. Replace the values with pedersen commitment (and range proofs on their sums), and only open the top and bottom ones. There is a fine writeup on the subject here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170928054354/https://iwilcox.me.uk/2014/proving-bitcoin-reserves https://web.archive.org/web/20170928054354/https://iwilcox.m... (Archive.org link because Zak died a couple years ago stomach cancer at age 40 due to an undetected chronic H. pylori infection, and his website didn't out survive him for long)
    • hackernudes 3y ago
      I guess what I'm asking is do they have to do it? I haven't tried reading any of the filings, etc... I'm wondering if someone has already done the work for me to say if this issue has been addressed by the SEC and/or individual ETFs.
• jrmg 3y ago
  What’s the difference between this and e.g. GBTC?
  • snapcaster 3y ago
    GBTC is becoming an ETF, so shortly the answer will be "nothing". But, currently it's not an ETF or equivalent because you can't redeem the shares of the ETF for the underlying asset. This has resulted in the price of GBTC diverging significantly from the price of bitcoin since you don't have that natural ability to arbitrage away and price differences with redemptions
  • killerstorm 3y ago
    GBTC has two problems: 1. fees are absolutely insane 2. it doesn't actually track Bitcoin price A proper ETF which aims to be competitive might be much closer to actual BTC ownership
    • keenmaster 3y ago
      2 will be solved by arbitrage (the discount will evaporate). 1 can be solved by competition, assuming GBTC holders actually switch to lower fee ETFs once they see the discrepancy in fees.
    • modeless 3y ago
      It will track the price now that it is an ETF, that's solved. Fees are still insane so it will slowly dwindle as people sell it in favor of other options, but it will still exist for a long time because people can't sell their existing holdings without triggering huge capital gains taxes.
• Octokiddie 3y ago
  The strong anti-Bitcoin sentiment on HN is still amusing. It goes way back - 13 years or more. Having read many of these negative comments, I think part of this sentiment boils down to the commenter seeing no point to Bitcoin. Just this thread has examples. It must be more than a little annoying to feel very strongly that Bitcoin is pointless, but to also notice that it's still here. Year after year. If that shoe were on my foot, in addition to being annoyed I'd be curious about what I was missing. Bitcoin doesn't have to do something useful for everyone to survive. It doesn't have to "replace fiat." It doesn't have to be a payment system. It doesn't have to "go to the moon." It doesn't even need an ETF. Bitcoin just needs to fill needs (or wants) not met by anything else. They don't even have to be your needs or wants. Unlike every other attempt at electronic cash that came before it, Bitcoin also doesn't need the approval of any person, police force, legislative body, military, or government. I'd challenge people who hold negative views on Bitcoin to name some other systems for which this holds true. I think that's the point that a lot of hostile commenters might be missing.
  • simonw 3y ago
    What needs and wants is it fulfilling for you?
    • MuffinFlavored 3y ago
      Me guessing (as somebody who is anti-crypto): they like how it returns ~50-100% year over year pretty much. I swear I saw some super highly upvoted comments that read as normal + level-headed in r/CryptoCurrnecy that was like "if it goes from $45k -> $100k this year it isn't even that much" Do you ever hear Warren Buffet saying "122% yearly returns are meh"?
      • stringfood 3y ago
        [dead]
      • Timber-6539 3y ago
        Yep, crypto bros will get in bed with the same banks that screwed them over in 2008 if the end goal means that the price of their coin (ahem) bags.. go up. The whole Bitcoin 'manifesto' and sticking it to the man is just a ruse.
• MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  Looks like these are the 11 tickers? Bitwise (BITB) ARK Invest/21Shares (ARKB) Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF (BTCO) iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) VanEck Bitcoin Trust (HODL) Franklin Bitcoin ETF (EZBC) Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Trust (FBTC) WisdomTree Bitcoin Trust (BTCW) Valkyrie Bitcoin Fund (BRRR) Hashdex Bitcoin Futures ETF (DEFI) Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC)
  • mFixman 3y ago
    What's the difference between those 11 tickers? Shouldn't all of them go up or down the price of bitcoin plus/minus a very small error rate?
    • shagymoe 3y ago
      Probably fees, but that's true of the many S&P 500 funds also.
  • paulpauper 3y ago
    Weird how the price went to 48k on fake news, with the potential to go even higher until revealed to be fake, but only 47k on the real news?
    • x3n0ph3n3 3y ago
      I suspect a lot of people corrected their trading bots after the fake news yesterday, so they didn't trade on today's news.
    • gruez 3y ago
      priced in, probably.
      • fsckboy 3y ago
        well, or it's tied into all other segments of the economy and those segments have moved up and down due to their own economic forces, and markets balance that with prices. for bitcoin to move up or down $1000 a day has a variance: call me when we're outlying
• Timber-6539 3y ago
  No Bitcoin, you were meant to destroy them. Not give them an extra avenue to make profits.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • 0xpgm 3y ago
    Embrace, extend, extinguish. Though it could work both ways here
  • LAMike 3y ago
    They bent the knee, it's a total L for them to be 15 years late on the greatest asset ROI in this century
• cs702 3y ago
  The Bitcoin network has survived everything that has been thrown at it. Nothing has stopped the damn thing. It's always there. It's one of those things that just keeps on existing, like gold. It doesn't care what you think. It doesn't care whether you like it or not. It doesn't care if you understand it. It's just always been there. Might as well make it easier for people and companies to own it and trade Bitcoin, and for governments to tax profits on it.
  • peteradio 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • Zenul_Abidin 3y ago
      This comment gives me the impression that you're one of those people who disparages cryptocurrency.
  • optymizer 3y ago
    It has survived by changing the narrative and getting people to buy the stories. It was going to replace money, but then it didn't because the network slowed down to the point where it was unusable. Nobody was going to wait 30 min for a transaction to complete. So then the message was flipped and Bitcoin was now 'an asset', not a currency, further supported by IRS's decision to tax it like an asset, so it was advertised as a store of value, "like gold". It didn't deliver on the currency promise, even with all the lightening and proof-of-stake talks. It is actively hurting the entire planet at this scale by generating useless heat. And last, but not least, KYC lets governments track all your bitcoin purchases forever to an extent impossible to do with cash, including deanonymizing transactions retroactively decades later. A digital currency will not give us more freedom, it will only take more of it away, which is why I personally no longer support Bitcoin, and I don't think others should either.
    • tekchip 3y ago
      This global warming rhetoric against bitcoin is nonsense right? The current financial system doesn't run off as many or more computers in datacenters around the globe? I don't have objective numbers but I'd lay money credit card processing alone dwarfs bitcoin by a pretty good margin.
• benlivengood 3y ago
  Finally a workaround for high transaction fees! This should also solve the scalability issues quite a bit by reducing the need to record as many transactions in the first place once the exchanges hold most of the coins. Finally this should reduce the long-term potential in mining as the block reward keeps reducing exponentially with lower expectations of transaction fees. Sometimes regulatory solutions do fix hard technical problems.
  • x86x87 3y ago
    There are already L2 solutions like the Lightning Network.
    • handojin 3y ago
      I think the joke is sailing over your head?
  • guappa 3y ago
    Is this the kind of solution where you aren't actually using the blockchain, and are just ending up trusting a 3rd party that acts like a bank but is not regulated?
    • earnesti 3y ago
      The majority of people don't want to touch the blockchain.
      • guappa 3y ago
        They also greatly benefit from regulations.
  • herbst 3y ago
    I very highly doubt that trading ETFs has lower fees than Bitcoin. As monetary system Bitcoin, even more crypto in general, is still the one and only method to move money internationally in realtime with very low fees.
• dcolkitt 3y ago
  I think it's easy to be cynical. But one major reason I'm a believer in decentralized consensus is because I think it can make the silo'd financial systems of the world as seamlessly interoperable as the Internet made the silo'd telecommunication systems of the world. It feels a lot like when AOL first started supporting email in 1993. It's easy to dismiss AOL and Nasdaq as highly centralized systems that don't align with the ethos of decentralization. But the other way to look at it is a previously maximally centralized system is interfacing with a decentralized one in a way that gives the users of the former slightly more freedom and the latter wider user base and legitimacy.
  • TimJRobinson 3y ago
    I think this is a large part of why many Americans in particular don't understand crypto. They already have access to the world's best financial system and all the protections of the state when using it. Living in Australia and trying to invest in financial markets overseas is like pulling teeth sometimes, because every country has their own incompatible systems and local rules and regulations. And this is a developed well integrated country! Crypto is the first time we have a global financial system that everyone can join without any one country being able to set the rules and control the system. This is extremely beneficial for countries that don't trust each other to be able to integrate and trade.
    • marenkay 3y ago
      [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• democracy 3y ago
  Because blockchain, bitcoin and cryptography! You just don't lose money with bitcoin. It's mathematically impossible. Even if you lose money with bitcoin - it's good for bitcoin. It's free currency. Democracy. Bank the unbanked.
  • obviouslynew 3y ago
    I agree this is philosophically unaligned with the ethos of Bitcoin. But it's still fascinating to watch isn't it? SEC Approves an ETF of a digital currency created by an anonymous open source developer(s). When has something like that happened before in software?
• superfunny 3y ago
  Bitcoin makes pets.com look like Berkshire Hathaway
• david_shi 3y ago
  Bitcoin exists to solve the principal-agent problem that comes with delegating control of the money supply to singular institutions. If you look at the history of empires, from the Romans to the Han, it is littered with instances of societal decline as a direct result of inflation and overspending. This unilateral currency debasement is much harder if the collective (and global) definition of money is determined by distributed networks of computers. Maybe Bitcoin itself isn't the final form, but the fact that distributed systems and cryptography tech is out there means the cat is out of the bag. Even if your view on the crypto industry is negative, it's important to take some time to understand why millions of people around the world are involved in it. It's not only because of the appeal of ponzi schemes.
  • jtwoodhouse 3y ago
    "Maybe Bitcoin itself isn't the final form, but the fact that distributed systems and cryptography tech is out there means the cat is out of the bag." The bitcoiner argument would be that only bitcoin has reached a level of decentralization to survive, and the powers that be stand ready to crush any would-be stronger substitutes before they reach critical mass.
    • ijustlovemath 3y ago
      Bitcoin is far too slow and far too energy intensive to ever pose a real threat to a centralized system. I do think there is truth in that the future of currency is decentralized though!
  • qualifiedai 3y ago
    Millions are involved precisely because of the appeal of get rich fast and ponzi schemes. Tens of thousands are invoved because of its technological promise and appeal which you've described. This imbalance is the main problem crypto industry needs to solve before it truly reaches its potential.
    • david_shi 3y ago
      This is definitely true in the West. I said millions because of every day crypto usage in countries like Argentina and Turkey, where inflation makes it challenging to save money, and in countries where there are high remittance rates. More builders are definitely needed to improve the crypto user experience across a range of categories.
• sega_sai 3y ago
  I wonder what happens when an unregulated market that can be easily manipulated is connected to a 'normal' stock exchange through instruments like Bitcoin ETF.
  • Nursie 3y ago
    We're all going to find out. It's going to be wild.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • ensocode 3y ago
    maybe a good way to disrupt the current system
• bb88 3y ago
  So here's a question I don't know off hand: Can someone short bitcoin with this ETF?
  • ijhuygft776 3y ago
    Can't you short it the same way you short all other securities?
  • somedude895 3y ago
    There will be inverse ETFs on these in no time, give it a month or so.
  • miohtama 3y ago
    No you cannot. But there have existed regulated CME Bitcoin Futures instruments to short Bitcoin more than a half decade now.
• peter_d_sherman 3y ago
  >"The historic approval paves the way for the first regulated exchange-traded product in the U.S. to give investors direct exposure to the price of Bitcoin without requiring them to buy it or worry about self-custody. Investors will buy shares in ETFs holding Bitcoin as its underlying asset." Interesting! Looks like we've paved the way for yet another abstracted financial instrument -- which sits on top of yet another abstracted financial instrument... My only question, at this point in time, were I to have one, would be something like the following: What's the maximum levels of financial abstraction -- that can be stacked on top of one another? ? ??? Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_instrument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_instrument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(linguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(linguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFrdqQZ8FFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFrdqQZ8FFc
  • hereme888 3y ago
    Lol, good point. How about a WBTC ETF?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  I can't help thinking that Bitcoin ETFs could mark "Peak Bitcoin". When lots of people are trading it at their high street broker in their regular account, Bitcoin becomes just a number in a box - a crypto currency without crypto - with nothing underlying it.
  • xwolfi 3y ago
    It's hot air all the way down !
    • LAMike 3y ago
      Yes, the computers that power the Bitcoin network (the biggest supercomputer in the world) does produce a lot of heat. That can be a positive sum solution for those in cold climates, who are already paying hundreds or thousands a month to stay warm!
  • gigatexal 3y ago
    Here’s hoping bitcoin goes to zero
    • spaceman_2020 3y ago
      Bitcoin didn’t go to zero with people buying it through shady exchanges operated out of tax havens, and you think Bitcoin will go to zero AFTER its available to every investor in the US through every finance app and is being sold by giant hedge funds?
      • helsinkiandrew 3y ago
        > and you think Bitcoin will go to zero AFTER its available to every investor in the US through every finance app and is being sold by giant hedge funds? The reasoning is (I'm not saying I believe this will happen just that it is an interesting thought experiment) that if people quit the shady exchanges and start trading Bitcoin ETF in substantial numbers it could begin to starve the crypto network of transaction fees and the exchanges and other crypto companies of customers. If Bitcoin ETFs become the main way bitcoin is traded then purchasing bitcoin is just for speculation and not an 'investment in crypto and the future of finance', in that case it's much easier for the bubble to burst.
• pavlov 3y ago
  My prediction is that Bitcoin will become fully institutionalized within twenty years, to the point that the “Bitcoin” held by investors are entirely disconnected from the theoretical blockchain. A similar thing happened with stocks. Not so long ago they used to be physical pieces of paper. You could trade shares peer-to-peer and even anonymously by handing over the share certificate to someone in person. For dividends, there was a coupon that you could cut off with scissors and use to claim the income. Imagine you show up today at a Charles Schwab office with a 1977 Apple Computer stock certificate, and ask to sell it. That piece of paper is theoretically worth more than a Bitcoin (thanks to stock splits). But the Schwab branch surely won’t buy it, they’ll send you away. Getting your piece of paper recognized as stock that you can actually trade in modern systems is a separate process. That’s how it will be with Bitcoin in 2050. You contact Coinbase’s customer service AI and tell them you have an actual Bitcoin on the chain and you’d like to sell it. They’ll politely redirect you to the compliance department that will inform you that it may take up to six months to verify the provenance of your quaint original Bitcoin that’s not registered in the modern custodial systems - assuming your coin has no history with mixers and other addresses of interest to law enforcement, of course.
  • Ekaros 3y ago
    You know, those coins that satoshi mined are too high risk for our blockchain and bitcoin. So we just blacklisted all of them. And basically also all that haven't moved in 1 year from the date we did. Sorry your coins are forever dirty and no miner will include transactions with them in a block...
    • max51 3y ago
      Do you seriously think you can convince all mining pools to start blacklisting addresses like this?! The entire reason why it exists in the first place is to prevent interventions like this, it's what gives btc "value". Your chances are about as good as the USA trading their oil in ruble.
      • Ekaros 3y ago
        Not all, but enough. Specially if there is no on or off ramps for the other forks...
• DeathArrow 3y ago
  So bitcoin became something like money and stocks, just a number in a SQL database? And we can now finally make bitcoins out of thin air? How long before the amount of bitcoins traded by hedge funds will be larger than the amount of bitcoins that exist in the actual bitcoin network?
  • zubairq 3y ago
    The amount of fake bitcoins traded by exchanges and custodians probably exceeded 21 million already over the last 5 years. Hence, “not your keys, not your coins”
    • tiku 3y ago
      Cold storage wallets.
  • amjnsx 3y ago
    No there is a hard limit of 21m Bitcoins. You can't just "print more". Yes it's possible to trade "paper bitcoins" but if you don't own the underlying asset you are always at risk of being found out and not being able to cover the amount.
    • OsrsNeedsf2P 3y ago
      So the only difference between Bitcoin and stocks in 2024 is that stocks are backed by an actual underlying company. Nice.
      • herbst 3y ago
        Can you use stocks to trade with others worldwide in realtime with a super low fee and full control over the payment process? Bitcoin still is a lot more than just that
        • soVeryTired 3y ago
          Traditionally you just use money to do that.
• olalonde 3y ago
  This is good for Bitcoin.
• xur17 3y ago
  I found this site pretty useful for comparing the different ETF tickers: https://www.btcpricetool.com/etf.html https://www.btcpricetool.com/etf.html
  • matijao 3y ago
    Fees here are very outdated, almost all of them lowered the fee again during the past 2 days
• ent1ty 3y ago
  With quantum computing growing rapidly, aren't all blockchains in danger of being decrypted and drained in the future?
  • metw02024 3y ago
    Quantum computers still have a few hurdles to overcome... https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-computing-skeptics https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-computing-skeptics https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/03/28/1048355/quantum-computing-has-a-hype-problem/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/03/28/1048355/quantum-...
  • tsimionescu 3y ago
    Quantum computing is not "growing rapidly", it is at best "fast approaching" (and even that is doubtful). There is no quantum computer that does any kind of useful work today at all * - the biggest accomplishment of any quantum computer to date has been to run a simplified version of quantum factoring that calculated the prime factors of 15 are 3 and 5, if I remember correctly (maybe it was 21 = 3 × 7 actually?). Also, the blockchain is not encrypted, it is cryptographically signed. Any clients "decrypt" it all day every day, that is how you verify it. The security comes from making it hard to find a hash of a block that has the right structure. I don't think it is known whether any quantum algorithm could improve significantly on this problem (there might be a small improvement from using the quantum O(sqrt(n)) Grover's algorithm instead of the classical O(n) searches, but that's not hard to work around). Note that quantum computers are only known to be exponentially faster at a handful of very specific problems, not in the general case. While this is not established fully, it is considered highly likely by those in the field to be the case. * there are some computers that implement specific quantum algorithms that are sometimes called quantum computers, but those can't do the more interesting algorithms that could break encryption.
    • nadahalli 3y ago
      The hashing part is kind of orthogonal. The real negative outcome of quantum computers getting reliable and powerful would be that ECDSA would be broken (using Shor's algorithm variants). This would make every coin stealable by anyone with access to such a computer. Some coins would be easier to steal than others (P2PK would be the easiest - and all of Satoshi's coins are P2PK). The Bitcoin network would keep working, but coin-ownership would be meaningless.
• Marazan 3y ago
  An astonishing poor decision from the SEC.
  • LAMike 3y ago
    Why?
• Devasta 3y ago
  A fantastically incompetent decision, just unbelievable.
  • tiku 3y ago
    Why? Supply and demand. If there is demand then it's fine. If there isn't any thats ok as well.
    • Devasta 3y ago
      Its climate arson.
      • diggan 3y ago
        Aren't there oil ETFs or other types of ETFs that have a much higher negative impact on the environment? Any sort of currency seems to bring out the worst, maybe currencies in general is the problem?
      • LAMike 3y ago
        Bitcoin mining incentivizes finding the cheapest source of energy, accelerating things like the adoption of solar or using flared gas to power data centers instead of burning it into the atmosphere. Research deeper!
    • hackerlight 3y ago
      There's sizeable market failure in the form of externalities, in this case emissions tied to its energy usage.
• rahmansahinler1 3y ago
  There is something I'm not sure of about new topics. Bitcoin makes it's value mostly it's aspect of being decentralized. I think new approves does not increase original bitcoin value. Maybe the big guys wants to create another hype loop that will gather people's money.
• bluecalm 3y ago
  Is there any guarantee that if this goes wrong (let's say ETF's are hacked and lose their BTC) then assets in other ETF's are safe? Let's say BlackRock ends up on the hook for billions after their BTC ETF goes wrong. Are my shares in iShares NASDAQ 100 ETF safe? I want to make sure I don't have any exposure to crypto world by owning stock ETFs. If there is any scenario that I am on the hook for crypto nonsense going south I am going to sell and just own selected stocks instead. I would greatly appreciate someone providing clarity on this issue.
  • denotational 3y ago
    I can only speak for EU (Ireland) domiciled ETFs, but there shouldn’t be any possibility of such contagion: something highly liquid like NASDAQ 100 will be 100% physically replicated with the assets held by a custodian. The collapse of a separate ETF that happens to have the same manager will not have an impact on the rights of shareholders of another ETF to the assets backing the fund. I know nothing about the legal vehicles used for US domiciled ETFs, but I would assume the situation is the same. Talk to a financial advisor before making decisions based on this information.
  • helsinkiandrew 3y ago
    > Is there any guarantee that if this goes wrong (let's say ETF's are hacked and lose their BTC) then assets in other ETF's are safe? They're as safe as any other share or ETF of a company that could be hacked or robbed/suffer a disaster of some kind, or indeed any regulated bank, broker, exchange etc. As the BTC securities would be a small part of the total value of the Organisations holding them - I would assume that they would be capable of making up of any losses to holders due to their screw up (as happened when Nickel was stolen from a warehouse that was used as backing for Nickel futures contracts). However, any other external crypto nonsense going south would likely cause BTC to drop!
    • bluecalm 3y ago
      The question is about assets in one ETF being on the hook if the company goes in trouble. There either is regulation to prevent it or there isn't. I don't think you can answer it with general analysis like that.
• hospitalJail 3y ago
  Pretty much endgame level for Bitcoin.
  • LAMike 3y ago
    > Pretty much endgame level for Bitcoin. for Bitcoin critics
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]