Bitcoin Forum

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/winklevoss-bitcoin-trust-files-to-sell-201-million-shares-2014-12-31-7915121

It only means that the Winky bros need some little money in 2015 ;)

Instead I think that the next year carousel will start to turn ! And with winklevoss ETF we will see many thing that will happen ! Many Bitcoin data has increased this year, only thing which is decrease is price !

Any price range given?
They gonna dump their own Bitcoin on the ETF now in a short lived buying frenzy to fill the fund.
Thats what it means to me. No market reaction, yet.

IPO: http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/company/winklevoss-bitcoin-trust-909930-72927

It means BTC going public stock exchange... Well, kind of... They will be selling shares of their BTC fund.

guess we are doomed? Winklevoss switched to Paycoin i heard - much wow!

It means the periwinkles need to recover some of the money they lost on Bitinstant.


Taken from: http://www.etf.com/sections/features/23846-winklevoss-bros-beware-bitcoin-etf-risks.html

Winklevoss ETF update, what does this mean?

------> in 2014 : MtGox (little finger in your ass)
------> in 2015 : 2 time more : double combo Wink in your ass (when you want REAL BTC...)


 ;D

SHARE and ETF is not BTC.

Yes M, thank you for chewing it out for me

It means strap on your seatbelts folks, this rocket ship is about to take off!

https://i.imgur.com/CbeOgFW.png

Much wow once the COIN ETF launches.   8)

It means buckle your seatbelt dorothy cause kansas is going bye-bye

THX for new wallpaper.

This will be huge imo, it will legitimate Bitcoin x m00n

This is correct, however investors in COIN are going to be effectively be investing in bitcoin as they will own a trust that owns bitcoin. Additionally the trust (and trustees) should be (IMO) considered to be trustworthy and it is possible to exchange shares in the trust for actual bitcoin (and vice versa)

"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of Bitcoins, as measured by the Winklevoss IndexSM (“WinkdexSM”), less the Trust’s expenses. The Sponsor believes that, for many investors, the Shares will represent a cost-effective and convenient means to access exposure to bitcoins. The Shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust and are expected to be traded under the ticker symbol “COIN” on the NASDAQ."


So investors will have the chance to invest in shares aka "convenient means to access exposure to bitcoins?" In turn will be traded on NASDQ under the ticker "COIN?"

So effectively bitcoins will be traded on the stock exchange?

Wished I had a BTC for every time "something" was going to push Bitcoin to the moon LOL

I'll wait and see before I buy into it.


~BCX~

I really dont think there back up plan is dump all the BTC they own on their very own EFT.
What btc would be left to sell shares in?

if paypal announcement didn't help the price im not sure this will

Well if its the NASDAQ thats about 100x bigger than any current bitcoin exchange out there

Exactly. They will have to own the corresponding amount of BTC, or the ETF will fail to track the BTC price (minus expenses). The gold bugs keep harping that "GLD doesn't own any gold" but the fact that GLD has done such an admirable job of tracking the gold price is a proof that it indeed does own the gold it claims to own.

They can also make COIN even more transparent by publishing the public keys of their BTC accounts, so that anyone can verify on the blockchain that they indeed own the BTC they claim to own. (GLD publishes the registration numbers of the gold bars it owns, for instance, but this would be even better).

Will it make the price of BTC go up? Unlikely. However, it should increase the liquidity and might stabilize the price (i.e., reduce the volatility) a bit.

I don't think this is news at all.  Seems just some guy rehash some old story.

On the NASDAQ link, status is -> "Filed (7/1/2013)"; under the financials & filings tab, last filing is from Jul 1 of 2014.

What if twins' coins were hacked? This is the single biggest risk that needs to be addressed  ;D

aha ...  ;D ... so, in real world, you can exchange ETF gold bond for physical gold ?  :D At the same price ... ? (trap)

 ::)

I would hope that the SEC would require that they've acquired some sort of insurance against losses in order to get approval.  Anyone that considers investing in their ETF certainly should verify whether or not they are insured against such theft when determining their risk exposure.

they refiled on the 30th of december 2014..
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=9924446

but still unsure when their nasdaq shares will actually be open to the public as thats the only question on people minds

how it works is that any WHALE investor can grab 10k of bitcoins and put them into the winklevoss trust as a basket. this basket then represents 50,000 shares (obviously a 0.2btc value per share).

the public can then buy those shares in any amount they want, small or large. and obviously sell shares on again.

anyone with 50,000 shares can ask to transfer the shares back to bitcoin and take that basket out of the trust.

what no on can do is own just 5 shares and request 1 bitcoin to be taken out of the basket. it has to be the 50,000 shares to be able to take a basket out of the trust

If I remember correctly the original plan was to have a share worth 1/5th of a bitcoin, but with that many shares they must be trying to make a share worth x millibits instead.  Smart move IMO.  Single Bitcoins costing several hundred dollars is a huge psychological barrier for a lot of tech inept investors. 

Is this good or bad? :D

its still a 5th of a bitcoin, they are releasing 1million shares..

if you do the maths, its the 200,000bitcoin that the winklevoss have on multiple times publicised that they have bought in 2012-2013. so i see nothing wrong.
these bitcoin/shares are cut down into 20 blocks of 10,000btc=50,000 shares which they call 'baskets'

other whales are free to purchase 10,000btc from wherever they like and then secure those into the winklevoss trust, to then increase the number of shares available for sell publicly

Proof?  Oh?  The fact that GLD tracks gold doesn't prove it has any gold.  It only proves the manipulators are paying attention and staying active.

But the comparison of COIN to GLD is interesting.  If GLD can sell off the physical gold, as many believe they've done, what would keep COIN from secretly selling off some bitcoin from the fund?  I don't know enough about the blockchain  to know if clever deception can always be caught.


Liquidity?  Interesting.  The FED's wrongful manipulation by "injecting liquidity" by printing up fresh dollars is one of the problems bitcoin might partially solve.  It seems almost dirty to talk about injecting liquidity in bitcoin.

It is good because they don't sell bitcoins, they sell shares. Basically this means they are offering shares to other investors. In other words, BTC are exchanged for fiat indirectly, when investors buy these shares.

In fact this is done all the time when funds that invest into real estate, gold et cetera, pull in money by selling shares to the public.

Hopefully this happens more often so that BTC becomes more mainstream.

Yeah, that seems good. Thanks for explanation.

i too remembered reading 1 million shares but OPs article says 20.1 million shares

not sure if this helps

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312514058712/d562329ds1a.htm

ahh yes, that does help :)

The article is titled poorly, it says 20.1 million shares referring to the outdated evaluation of 1million shares @ $20.1 million last February.   

This thing has dragged on for over 1.5 years.......Not sure when it will ever see the light of day.

You can't set up any ETF overnight. It's probably right on schedule.

I remember reading several months ago that it was facing delays, so I would say it is probably somewhat behind schedule (especially considering this is the first news regarding this in months).

Since this is the first ETF they are starting it will take a little bit longer then what companies like Vanguard take to start a new ETF

always enjoy these threads. usually very little new info, but entertaining discussion aplenty. :D

if they ever do actually open this thing and sell shares publicly, it will be very interesting to watch. good for the price, bad? stable, crazy rocket? no idea. but it'll be a fun show.

If a 'whale' was to buy 300,000 btc = 30 blocks and put this into the winklevoss EFT,
Who would then hold the majority vote in company matters?

Or would it just be smarter for them to set up their own EFT, that would cost a lot in itself, the winklevoss twin have spent a packet on setting up there's.

At the risk of stating the obvious, nobody. The company administering the ETF is not publicly traded, and shares in the ETF are not shares in the company.

Thanks that clears it up, i dont know much about EFT but sort of thought it wouldnt be shares in the company.

The prospectus says that they will be kept in cold storage (printed wallets stored in vaults).


You, personally, almost certainly cannot, but it is possible, yes. In fact, I know of at least one case when it was done.

It will be the same with this ETF. It would be possible to exchange ETF shares for bitcoins, but most people won't be able to afford it, because it will be doable only in multiples of 50.000 shares.

Read the prospectus.


This is not very clear from the prospectus. On the one hand, there is explicit language that there will be no insurance of the bitcoins. But maybe the meaning is that the bitcoins are not insured the way deposits are insured by the FDIC. On the other hand, there is language that the custodian would take whatever insurance means he deems appropriate and the terms may change.


This statement suggests that you have no clue how GLD tracks the price of gold.


and they are wrong.


The same thing. With time, the ability of COIN to track the bitcoin price will deteriorate significantly. The problem is that this will become obvious only significant time after the bitcoins are gone.

However, they can show transparency by publishing the public keys of their wallets - so that anyone can check that they indeed still own the bitcoins. Unfortunately, it is not clear to me from the prospectus whether they would do that. In fact, there is some language that says that both the private and the public keys will be kept confidential.


I don't think that you understand what this word means. It is not "injecting liquidity in bitcoin" as in "printing more bitcoins". It is "injecting liquidity in the bitcoin markets", as in "bringing more buyers and sellers".

Suppose that you own 1 BTC and desperately need US dollars to pay your rent, so you want to sell it. But, because there are few buyers on the market (the market is illiquid), you can find only one buyer who is willing to pay you no more than $250, despite the fact that the last transaction completed at $300. Since you are forced to sell (you need USD), you take the transaction and the price collapses to $250. Next come someone who really wants to own 1 BTC - but there is only one seller and he demands $350 for it. Since there is no other choice, the buyer agrees. Bang, the BTC price goes from $250 to $350. Huge volatility, because the market is illiquid (relatively few market participants).


Not really. It just means that it transfers ownership of the bitcoins owned by the twins to current holders of US dollars - once. You can turn the argument on its head and say that it is "bad" because it is equivalent to the twins selling their bitcoins. But it would be just as incorrect.

You must always keep in mind how a tracking ETF works. If the demand for shares is larger than the demand for bitcoins, the ETF custodian creates ETF shares out of nothing and sells them to the public. Then he uses the money from the sale to buy bitcoins. This drops the price of the shares (increased supply) and ups the demand for bitcoins (increased demand), bringing the two in equilibrium again.

The same procedure works in the other direction. If people start buying bitcoins faster than the ETF shares, the custodian sells some bitcoins and uses the money to buy back ETF shares and to destroy them. This increases the supply of bitcoins (putting a downward pressure on their price) and increases the demand for the ETF shares (putting an upward pressure on their price), bringing the two in equilibrium.

Note that it doesn't matter whether the price of bitcoins is going up, down or sideways. All that matters is the difference in demand between bitcoins and ETF shares. By creating and destroying shares and buying and selling bitcoins, the ETF custodian makes sure that the prices of the two are in sync - i.e., the ETF is doing its job of tracking the bitcoin price.

Of course, this mechanism will break down if the custodian has no bitcoins. Exactly the same logic applies to the gold tracking ETF.


An ETF is not a stock. Owning shares of it does not let you vote on how it is run.

You're very confident.  But we're talking about different things
You're talking about how the system works.
I'm talking about fraud by people in positions of power over the system.

More than a couple economists and knowledgeable commentators have proposed that both Fort Knox and the NY Fed's vault are empty of gold and so GLD's gold is being sold off to keep the price of gold low.

Germany recently demanded we give them back the gold they had left in the NY Fed's vault for safe keeping.  The US said it would take years to give it back (why?) and only shipped back a tiny percent.  But the gold they shipped back wasn't the old bars the Germans had deposited, it was new bars.  Why the change?  Some say Germany's old bars have already been sold off, so they had to rush out and buy a little new gold.

Why sell off the gold?  The Fed and the US Treasury know that the price of gold is the canary in the mine.  If it's price goes up, everyone will know the dollar is in trouble.  They MUST keep the price low to keep everyone assured that the "recovery" is proceeding.  That's mostly accomplished with naked shorting of gold on the future's market, but they have to have enough physical gold available to meet demand for the scheme to work, hence they steal from GLD's vault.


Obviously the bitcoin in COIN doesn't provide the same incentive, nor would it have the same level of powerful interests.  So it's probably safe.  I was just wondering out loud.

They don't run it themselves and pay someone for the security probably.

good step concerning the current price

1. sell company shares for fiat
2. convert fiat to btc
3. wait for rise
4. sell btc for fiat
5. announce +10 000% company value rise
6. sell shares more expensively

Bitcoin has no real value in the short term. In contrast to govt. papers, it has value while there's demand and today we can see no real demand.

There's demand, enough to maintain the current price point.

I am confident because I know how the system works. You obviously do not, so you engage in groundless speculations.


I am talking about the mathematics of supply and demand.


Those are groundless speculations. The only facts we know for sure is that the US gold reserves have not be audited for a very long time. Saying that the gold isn't there is a groundless speculation, just like saying that the gold is there. We don't know which is the case, because of the lack of audit.


This, however, is pure bullshit. If the GLD custodian wasn't buying and selling the gold it claims to buy and sell, GLD wouldn't have been able to track the gold price. And in order to sell gold, you must have it. Plus, GLD regularly (daily or weekly, don't remember) publishes the serial numbers of all the gold bars in their custody.

Only a total ignoramus can claim that GLD does not have the gold it claims to have.


Germany recently inspected its holdings at the NY Fed, was satisfied by what it saw, and decided not to press for repatriation of its gold.


Why not? Gold is fungible. Germany owns gold there, not pieces of art.


And some say this is total bullshit. Venezuela successfully repatriated all its gold and it is not exactly a friend of the USA. The Netherlands recently successfully repatriated all its its gold. Apparently, the gold was there.


This is bullshit spewed by the gold promoters. Don't believe them, or you'll lose money. There are much more efficient ways of manipulating the currency markets.


Except a few crazies, nobody cares about the gold price. That the "recovery" is fake is obvious from the falling labor force, the stagnating household income, and a zillion of other things. The gold price is falling not because of some dark conspiracy but because the dollar is going up. (Check the gold price in Russian rubles or Japanese yen.) And the dollar is going up because the global economy has started falling apart at the periphery and capital is rushing into the perceived safe haven, which is the world reserve currency.


Nonsense.

It means nothing. 

It's all bullshite.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but why would they need to have the gold to track the price?
If I understand, what you are trying to say, then they have to buy and sell it them self to see the price. Couldn't they just look it up else where?

Realized they invested into something that isn't an investment and are trying to cashout early.

vote in company matters??

the shares are not ownership of any company.. they are shares of a bitcoin. thepoint of the trust is this..

imagine it as a office.. that trades shares. to be a dealer/salesmen in the office you have to own baskets of bitcoins, and then you can manage the ownership of the shares of the bitcoin between your customers. you do not have any voting rights of the office. you are just sat in the office managing the share transaction information of the buys and sells of your basket(s)

Maybe (which I doubt, especially if I try to track the overall daily buy/sell volume).  Even if there's some demand "to maintain the current price point", it's not enough to maintain growth. For an ETF, capital appreciation is a top priority objective. At the moment, keeping Bitcoin as an asset in a large investment portfolio for a manager is like walking on a thin ice. But who knows what will happen this year, it's just started!   :)

Huh interesting. I really am anxious for them to get things going! I really don't grasp the whole concept and it puzzles me that no one even knows when/if(!!!) this thing is going to start. It may very well be the exact investment vehicle the big money needs, but we shouldn't put all our hope in it. I'm afraid that people overestimate its influence.

Some of it is speculation, but it's not my speculation.  I've been reading and listening to a fair number of people for several months and have come to respect them.

And it's not groundless.  They cite specific reasons for the positions they hold.

I know nothing about commodities trading, but one thing I hear over and over again is that someone is shorting gold and silver on the commodities market with such extremely large contracts that they overwhelm the market.  Gold should never be in backwardation because gold is money yet has no debasement risk.  But they say gold is frequently in backwardation, not contango as it should be.  This means knowledgeable people are fearful that there will be no gold available in the future so they're willing to pay more to get it right now.

You dismiss the German gold incident, but the fact that the Germans decided to drop their demand has little to do with gold and everything to do with politics.  The fact remains, they asked us to return their gold and we said we couldn't.  Couldn't.


Exactly.  They can drive the price down with commodities shorting, which dries up most demand, but there MUST be some actual physical gold for sale to handle the remaining demand or the manipulation would fall apart.


Saying "total ignoramus" reveals emotion.

All right, just one quote.  James Turk and John Rubino, in their book The Money Bubble (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1622170342/), discussed how western central banks, including the Fed, are leasing gold to bullion banks, "which sell the gold on the open market."  Then on page 231: Are James Turk and John Rubino "total ignoramuses"?

I've obviously struck an emotional cord.  I wonder why.  Let me do some of my own speculating.  One of these probably fits you:

• You work for a big bank or the Fed or Treasury Dept. or somewhere else in the cartel and you are paid to tamp down anything that could reveal truth.  Or you're not paid, but feel emotionally connected to the need to keep the dollar supreme regardless of the truth.  Or
• You have a great deal of wealth tied up in GLD or another PM ETF and you feel trapped and you protect yourself by denial and you lash out at anyone who reveals the truth of your desperate situation.  Or
• You thought you were an expert who knew more than almost anyone else, but were caught up short by the deceitfulness of the Fed and the banking cartel.  You're now starting to accept the truth, but are lashing back a little anyway.

.
I hate the deceitfulness too.  And I'm going to get hurt along with everyone else when the collapse comes, but I've noticed that it's not just a few crazies that are saying the things I'm repeating here.

Either way there will be a risk of theft of the fund's bitcoin (as noted in the prospectus). The security is also going to be a larger of the fund's expenses

But how big is this risk? How would they address this risk? The most inherent risk would be someone guessing or stealing the private key(s) to the addresses holding the BTC, right? I mean a fund of that order of magnitude better oughta know their stuff...

It means that the next bull run is about to commence. The nasdaq sees trillions of dollars in volume yearly. Just dec 31st alone saw 58B traded on the nasdaq for the DAY!!!!

With that kind of liquidity and eager investors to dabble in btc were sure to see some serious gains in 2015.

#VivaLaBTC

What if the ETF isn't going to be approved? What about the BTC the twins already prepared for it? People who bought BTC in anticipation of the fund are going to dump their stash on the market... We could go much lower then...

Doomsday scenarios.  I'll bet every bitcoin I own that it will go ahead as planned. No reason not to.. The winkvoss have one of the best if not the best ETF lawyer in the country. They have enough capital to float them through any bureaucratic red tape they may find themselves dealing with.

Trust me.... The ETF will be here in 2015, and the bull run will get underway.

Do you think? Man those are some reassuring words! Which lawyer is this, is he known for anything special? Aren't there some rumors about the SecondMarket not being able to cash out their money right now???

When the SEC decides that there won´t be any Bitcoin ETF, they can just invent some excuse why they won´t accept it.
Just imagine the strong banking lobby which could have strong influence on this decission. I would say 50%, 50% that we will see this ETF in 2015.

Do you think it will be pushed back to 2016, or even later, or rejected completely??? But you are right that the banking lobby may try to influence that decision! This could be a very bad thing for Bitcoin. "First they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you lose."

Have you given up on altcoins Bob (EMC2 & LTC)? I would think the spike in BTC price coming from an ETF wouldn't be enough profit fast enough for you.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/brace-yourself-for-the-winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-sITHeFwvSlWO7YMDSL9n7A.html

watch that....

It's a bit dated but is still very relevant.

More Doomsday hooplaaa!

The FBI are selling BTC... Consumers are buying Homes, Cars and Boats with BTC.

Bitcoin is real man... Wake up and realize this.. You just gotta be patient... Email did not become a major player in its first few years.

Give bitcoin some time!

I never really gave up on LTC, although I have not followed the market for quite some time. I hold a few stacks and maybe one day they'll be worth $40 again or even more.. As for alts.. I never liked them.. I only saw them as a vehicle to acquire more BTC and Fiat. As for the ETF and btc swings.. I couldn't care less these days.. I have a 10 and 20 year plan with btc put away that I bought when they were in the low double digits. I have fiat and btc to live off of and I make more btc daily thanks to the altmarkets.

Im a long term HODLING bull when it comes to btc.... I just think that the ETF will indeed start the next bullrun

I hope your right. It sure would be nice to have a big fat paycheck instead of all the doom and gloom we've had lately.

The last statement about dollar going up is bullshit, the russian rubbles did loose value against every currency and it wasn't about dollar getting stronger in any way.

You see, that's what I dont get. I seen a bunch of hero and legendary members on the forum as of late bashing btc, calling for lower lows and all around turning their back on btc. I'm not sure if this is maybe because they were early adopters, who sold out for major profits early on ($1-$50)... then got trapped on the last bull run and have watched all them profits fade away or maybe its something else. Who knows?

But dont worry bud... BTC is bigger then all the hero/legendary member and this forum combined..

#ToThemoon

Yeah but it's hard to get fucked for years and not begin hating on the jar of vasoline even if it is protecting your ass.  ;)  May all your btc dreams come true.

How have you been getting fuck for years with btc??? Only way I can think of is you're the worst trader on the planet!

:p

What's the deal?

The trading I've done well with but I fell for a few of the scams and thefts because they were being pitched by people I thought were reputable. The only ones that really shocked me were Bitcoinica and GLBSE. I was sure they were legit. Oh well, tomorrow is a new day right?

Ive heard about this quite some time ago, it seems there's a lot of regulation and such associated with it.  Hopefully we see it soon.

Sorry to hear that man. But yes tomorrow is a new day. Good luck man.. i'm sure you'll figure out some way to make your own moves and get on top.

Hero and even Legendary members don't necessarily need to be around for that long, really! A lot of them came with the first bubble of 2013, I guess. So they don't necessarily have profited from it, maybe they didn't anticipate and thus missed the second bubble of 2013 and now try to recoup their losses because they bought at the top...

yeah I hear that.. But most of the ones who caught my eye were indeed oltimers. Makes no difference anyway as bitcoin is gonna moon and mars and all that good stuff....

Most of us will be talking in 20-30-40-50 years and telling people where we were when btc hit 1k 10K 25K 50K ect..

Just like we all remember where we were when we first heard about sep 11.

No, it means you guys should learn to edit.  We can all scroll.  You don't need to include the whole thread in every post.

That would be awesome... It really sometimes is hard to keep faith in BTC, but I'm determined to do so and ride this train to its final destination, of which I am convinced, is the moon :D

And that;s the beauty of a free world.. I can choose to quote or not!

#VivaLaBTC

I'll make sure to have a cold glass of bubbly waiting for you! On me!

#MoonBound

So when is this bloody ETF gonna launch? 2015? 2016? Anyone got a crystal ball? Lol

I asked my magic 8 ball if the ETF would be launched in 2015 and the reply I got was:

YES!

Let's see what happens!

Banks can insure fiat money backed assets, in worst case scenario they just print some money to pay the insurance, it will be ordered. But for bitcoin, no insurance company can provide such insurance.

Because, they can't collect the evidence of the theft. Seeing bitcoin being sent from one address to another on blockchain does not prove anything. And to make things worse, since you can not create bitcoin out of thin air like you do with fiat money, there is no lender of last resort, eventually the loss will be covered purely by the insurance company, and its investors. And I suppose no investors dare to provide such an insurance for bitcoin

you cant be serious, the same is true for gold and all other real assets in the world which can be insured easily  :D

that lender of last resort is a criminal organization that makes money by counterfeiting and pays the government to force people to accept it; it is a bad thing that fiat can be created from thin air

this bail-outing leads to bubbles too, the money from the 2008 bailouts is still in the system

now insured BTC would have to be procured on the open market, no bubble, no devaluation...no problem

Does it mean they are just short of money or have they simply lost trust in bitcoin? Hopefully it's the first point. I mean initially they were very bullish about btc capturing all the credit card market shares. Something like they envisioned the price of per btc to be worth 32k someday.

I would somewhat doubt they would. The SEC does not require similar insurance for other ETFs (AFAIK) so I don't see why they would subject a bitcoin ETF to different rules (that wouldn't be very fair).

I do think they could potentially be liable in the event that someone did hack their wallet and was able to steal the private keys that controls the bitcoin held by the ETF

I already explained in another post how a tracking ETF works. If people are buying the underlying commodity (gold, bitcoin, whatever) faster than they are buying the ETF shares (it doesn't matter which way the price of the commodity is going, but it usually happens when it is going up), the ETF custodian must sell the commodity (suppressing its price) and use the money from the proceedings to buy ETF shares (boosing their price) and to destroy them. This brings the two (shares and commodity) back in equilibrium.

But, in order to sell that commodity, you must have it in the first place. If you don't, you can't sell it, you can't re-establish the equilibrium and the ETF will fail to track the price of the commodity.


No. They don't have to buy and sell in order to "see" the price. They have to do it in order to influence the prices of the ETF shares and of the commodity it is tracking (prices that have diverged, due to the difference in demand), in order to bring them back in sync.

You've been listening to the wrong people. Don't, or you'll lose money.


These "reasons" are just opinions. Often there is a hidden agenda (these people are trying to sell you gold or have a vested interest in talking up gold), but most of the time they are just the result of ignorance and stupidity. Yes, even when their reasoning sounds plausible and informed.


Then educate yourself instead of blindly trusting others.


Yes, you can manipulate a thin market (silver more so than gold) with deep pockets. However, you must realize that

1) Futures trading is a zero-sum game (unlike stock trading which has influxes due to stock issuance, mergers, dividends, and so on). If somebody sells a large number of short contracts, that might well depress the price - but later down the line, when the contracts expire, he will have to buy them back, thus similarly applying upward pressure on the price. (Theoretically, he could also deliver the commodity, but almost nobody does that. Less than 2%, as far as I remember.) You cannot continuously manipulate the market down by selling short contracts, because you will go bankrupt.

2) Manipulation is real. However, it occurs in both directions. When the price spikes, this can be the result of manipulation too - with somebody trying to make a lot of money by unloading inventory to the johnny-come-lately fools.


Debasement risk has nothing to do with it. It's all about supply and demand and time preference. A commodity is in backwardation when the market participants perceive that there are future shortages risks. Note - the market participants don't have to be right. They only have to think so as a whole.


Actually, that's a relatively recent phenomenon and it usually doesn't last long. Other commodities also occasionally enter backwardation - for instance, oil did so recently, if I remember correctly.


Correct, and this is all that it means. It doesn't mean that these people are right. It only means that there are enough of them who think that they are right.


No, you didn't say that. You gave them a timetable for fulfilling their request. Many people think that the time given was unreasonably long, but most people (me and you included) simply do not know the facts behind it.


No disagreement here. And, the fact that nothing has "fallen apart" yet (I've been hearing screams of "gold manipulation" since the 80s) proves that the gold is really there. In fact, it has been slowly but steadily flowing to the East (mostly China and India).


That's because I'm really fed up with the "gold manipulation" conspiracy theorists. They have caused more financial losses to the people who have listened to their garbage than if there were actual dark conspiracy involved.


Two well-known gold promoters.


Of course they are. Gold is a dead asset - it bears no return. So, they are trying to make some money by leasing it. Those who get it under lease, do whatever they want with it, but they must return it (plus rent). Yes, they can sell it and suppress the price - but eventually they will have to buy it, supporting the price. Sure, they can make a bad trade and go bust - but it hasn't happened yet, so I guess they know more about gold trading than you or the two gold promoters mentioned above.


From the sellers, of course, whoever they were. As I said, in the past decade and a half, physical gold has been slowly but steadily flowing from the West to the East. Not to mention that "gold mined" is just some minuscule quantity, relatively speaking. Less than 1.5% of the available supply. All gold mines in the world can shut down for 20-50 years (depending on how you count) and there will still be enough supply to satisfy the demand for all this time.


Ignorant nonsense, groundless speculation, or blatant lies - take your pick.


Sigh...

1) Where do you expect it to be shipped?! To Johnny's Pawn Shop?! Or course it will be shipped to the well-established refineries.

2) ETF, just like all the Western commodities exchanges, deals only with 400-ounce LBMA good delivery bars. Any "official" Western gold - no matter whether it comes from the ETF holdings, from Fort Knox, or from some London-based bullion dealer will be in this form. So, of course this is what will have to be refined into the Chinese-preferred sizes.

3) As I already explained, GLD has to sell (and buy!) physical gold (and ETF shares!) in order to function. When it sells physical gold, somebody has to buy it. It is perfectly possible that this "somebody" then converts it into Chinese-size bars and imports it to China. That's his business. He bought the gold, paid for it and can do whatever he damn pleases with it. So what? How does it "prove" that GLD doesn't have any gold?!


They are biased gold promoters with an agenda who are misrepresenting the facts by giving their followers only one part of the story.


LOL. My name is Vesselin Bontchev. Google me - I used to be somewhat famous. I currently work in the academia. The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, to be precise. My field of expertise is computer viruses and computer security in general. If you doubt that I am this person, I could sign a statement with a PGP key which is widely known. Long story short, I am not even American and of course I don't work in any US institution. Do have, however, some education in the field of economy and finance and have traded various markets for a couple of decades. Non-professionally, of course.


I tend to get emotionally agitated when faced with stupidity and ignorance.


Wrong. I have a small amount of wealth parked in physical gold, mostly for diversification, portfolio stability and financial insurance purposes. Bought long time ago, when the price was around $600 and am not selling, no matter where the price goes. I bought it not as speculation (and not as an investment, of course - you can't invest in gold) but as an expenditure for a particular purpose.


I am an expert and know more than almost anyone else in my field of expertise. ;D

It shouldn't be large in the absolute sense, though. Securing a bunch of USB drives or paper wallets or whatever is much easier and cheaper than securing tons of gold - and GLD isn't that expensive (0.4%, if I remember correctly, but I might be wrong; haven't checked that in a while).

Unfortunately that's the nature of a centralized organization: When it becomes too big to fail, it will be bailed out by government. And the mindset behind a ETF is exactly centralized organization

There is no law currently protect you from bitcoin theft, since it is so difficult to prove that it is not you but the hacker did the transaction. Just like MTGOX case, most possibly it is an insider job, but you might never find out the truth

I had planned to open an insurance service for bitcoin, then I realized that every customer will just claim that their coins were stolen and this service will go broke from day one. Do you have a better idea?

Are the WV twins actually registered on Bitcointalk? :D

As far as i know they aren't, atleast they never signed message with their addy.

Pretty sure with owning 1% of all BTC they watch everything BTC related very closely including forums, part of the value is the current network.

One point that's been overlooked in this discussion: ETFs allow institutional and qualified/professional investors to purchase regulated securities, pursuant either to their own internal bylaws and product placement memoranda, or to securities laws by which they must abide. For example, a professional investment fund, such as a mutual fund or hedge fund or pension fund, is limited in how it may allocate investors' funds insofar as the fund is only permitted to purchase securities regulated under such-and-such provisions. A fund may indeed wish to purchase bitcoins right now, but it cannot due to the aforesaid regulatory provisions; however an ETF investment vehicle would allow the fund to purchase shares in the bitcoin ETF right now, shares that would presumably track the Bitcoin price, and may be bought, sold, and traded—in a regulated environment—as any other shares would be.

Wow I came here looking for an Winklevoss update and I found more than i bargained for but cant seem to find the answer to my question. How are things coming along with this. we need this to go thru. Is anyone strongly following this Winklevoss situation and can give us n honest unbiased update, not speculation, but you know for sure this is whats happening :) thank you

I second this.

I suspect part of the reason there is such a dearth of information about the ETF is that the Winklevoss brothers are horrible at public relations and promotion, and moreover, that there simply aren't any meaningful updates to report.

There's only one known undeniable fact about this ETF that's available right now. The Winkleiidouches are trying to make themselves a fat stack of cash using Bitcoin.

Spot on.

Well I hope they do because if they get this thing going and do it right, we could all see a better rebound than it has ever sen. Bitcoin is traded so small scale right now, the people got in in 2009 got out in 2012/2013 and now not even they trust the market enough to jump in again, whats that tell you about bitcoin investors. Your "Winkleiidouches" as you so tactfully called them, were smart enough to realize the only players in bitcoin  now are idiots who dont understand trading, they dont know what bitcoin really is and what they are doing could very well change this whole game. They are not waiting with their thumbs up their ass to make some money on bitcoin like all the vets and developers are. they made an investment and they want a very good return. So instead of sitting on their thumbs up their asses they are taking this market to the big boys who have so much money the in their trading portfolio if you converted it to Bitcoins it would embarrass the person in the number 1 spot of Bitcoins richest wallets.

If they complete this task, you will no longer call them "Winkleiidouches" you will be calling them the next Bitcoin Gods and thanking your lucky stars they came thru, because whatever your holding, could be worth 4 times to 6 times what it is now, before they are done.

Nah, even if they make me a bunch of money they'll still be Harvard fraternity elitist scumbags. The rest of it's speculation. They couldn't care less about Bitcoin they just want to make money. They'd sell dog turd futures if their advisor saw a profit in it. I watched the two of them speak at a Bitcoin conference. These two are a couple of seriously unimpressive dudes. You'll never convince me that investing in bitcoin was their idea.

Exactly. Even people who just want to invest a percentage of their Roth IRA portfolio holdings into bitcoins will be able to do so with this.

It will blow the lid off btc, send it to the moon. I can see it legitimizing crypto for many who would never consider it before. They have a ton of btc to play with, they will move the price every day.

This won't really legitimize Bitcoin. It's kind of designed for exactly the opposite. This will allow people that don't want to get dirty by holding Bitcoin directly to get in on the action. Like when drug lords invest in a Vegas casino. The casino gets the drug money without having to sell a few kilos of dope.

Investors like to have a few percent of their portfolio in super high risk high yield investments. If their risky investment succeeds it increases their bottom line a great deal. If it fails it doesn't drop their bottom line by very much. Buying riskier assets with a low correlation with each other is the classic diversification strategy. Bitcoin also acts like an inverse preformer which could allow hedging of less risky investments. Hedges aren't really legitimate investments. They are more like casino dice rolls that you're gambling will pay off if everything else in your portfolio tanks.

only reddit i guess.

If institutional investors wanted to invest in Bitcoin, they would be already in the game. Those guys are so sensitive with potential profits and there is no way they don't invest in something they want just because it isn't a fund.

I think that Winklevoss ETF is just an attempt of the twins trying to get out of Bitcoin by selling to some naive retail investor.

Hmmm.  This raises an interesting question.

When an investor buys 5 shares, the fund has to buy one bitcoin.  But where will the fund go to buy the bitcoin--from the open market, or from the twins?

If the fund buys bitcoins from the open market, then it should have a very positive influence on the dollar equivalent value of bitcoin, which we'll all enjoy.

But what if the fund buys bitcoins from the twins?  That will allow the twins to offload their bitcoins without affecting the market.  That will be good for them, but it won't drive up the dollar value of bitcoin.

I don't think there's any legal issue.  But it'll be interesting to see what the exchange rate does when COIN finally opens for trading.

The Winklevie own a fuck-ton of Bitcoins.  More than could be easily converted to $USD using methods available today without totally crashing the market.

This could be a way for them to simply get the best price available for the BTC they own.  Rather than selling to existing investors available through today's crypto-currency exchanges, they are opening up Bitcoin to a whole new category of investors who wouldn't touch it otherwise.

I'm sure some are probably doing it small-scale anyway, but most investment firms are limited to trading on the public market due to regulatory compliance.  It is doubtful they are legally allowed to take their clients' money and buy BTC with it.  Schwab, Merryl Lynch and others are not going to put millions (or thousands, for that matter) into unregulated, uninsured, mostly overseas and privately owned crypto exchanges just to get in on the BTC action.

But . . . with a public listing on the NASDAQ, they sure will.  And so will all the little guys wondering WTF to do with their IRA money this year.  And so will day traders, with the software and user interfaces they are already accustomed to using.

I firmly believe this will either be the best or worst thing that has ever happened to Bitcoin.  It will either go ballistic, or fail miserably and everyone will lose confidence in crypto's completely.

To clarify: presently, institutional investors are not investing their clients' money into bitcoin. It's a compliance nightmare without any regulated bitcoin securities. Some wish to invest in bitcoin. Most do not. However, a few institutional fund managers have personally invested small amounts of their own money into bitcoin and have suggested others to do the same.

Underrated post.

Irrespective of how much the Winklevoss Twins may profit from their endeavor or if they are of virtuous character, a legit Bitcoin ETF would indeed attract investor capital to Bitcoin in unprecedented amounts.

Sounds like you don't follow the industry, then. Whether you like it or not, it will legitimize Bitcoin in an area where there is lots of money ready to move in.

We'll see when the sales numbers come in.

^

If the numbers come in.

myself I really doubt in the present climate of press FUD etc with bitstamp and the price drop
that they will get confirmed to proceed on their ETF fund

i suspect they will get some kind of "pending' status and the agency will kick this
down the road with no action until "suitable legislative action is taken with bitcoin"

this is the norm in the USA to now kick the can down the road ...say your are fully
behind something to look like you are in favor without any real results

hope I'm wrong but it has gone on too long to get accreditation or whatever is
left to be done.....looks to me like the 'big stall'  is in the works by the Feds..

again imho ..hope I'm wrong

I would agree with QA. It would allow more people to invest in and own bitcoin however it would probably actually slow adoption because people would have difficulty getting their COIN into actually spendable bitcoin

It's a bit more complicated than that. The fund already has about 200.000 BTC - the ones the twins have. Based on that, the fund will sell shares, so the twins will essentially cash out on their BTC. However, this by itself will not depress the BTC price, since it is not equivalent to dumping 200k BTC on the market.

When an investor buys shares, the fund doesn't have to buy BTC - it already has them. The fund just gets dollars from the investor, who now owns shares. (Theoretically, he owns BTC, but can redeem them only at multiples of 50k shares.)

The only case when the fund will have to buy BTC is if the public is buying ETF shares faster than it is buying BTC. Then the fund will have to create shares, sell them and buy BTC with the proceedings, in order to get the prices of BTC and the shares back in sync. Since the difference in demand (of shares and BTC) is unlikely to be large for significant periods of time, these operations will be relatively small. But, yes, in such cases the fund will have to buy BTC on the open market.


Only while the public is buying ETF shares faster than it is buying BTC, and only until the difference in demand is brought back into equilibrium. Do not expect a moonshot because of the fund's operations, and do not forget that it will act in reverse too (if demand for the shares is lower than demand for BTC, the fund will have to dump some BTC on the market, suppressing the price of BTC).

The prositive effect of the fund will be different - it will bring more liquidity to the market (more buyers and sellers) and will reduce the volatility a bit (and will probably reduce the price differences between the different exchanges).

There will always be a price that will pair sellers with buyers who want to actually spend them.

I personally think it will legitimize Bitcoin, because it'll bring the name "Bitcoin" to Joe Blow home investor on his Schwab account, as well as, the institutional big boys.

Having an ETF period means Wall Street will start taking a more serious look at "Bitcoin" as a brand.

Many investors and traders that buy stock in AAPL, MSFT, or NKE etc, are more likely to find out, research, and even utilize their products and services.

This would be a major win-win for BTC, especially if the ETF takes off after launch.

Keep in mind that total daily trading volume across all crypto-exchanges for all crypto-currencies, on a good day, is only around $50 million, maybe less.

That sounds like a lot, but this is so small it's barely measurable in comparison to the NASDAQ - which easily sees $50 BILLION per day.  This ETF makes Bitcoin easily available to where the BIG MONEY is.  For large institutional investors, dropping $1million or more on medium or high-risk investments is nothing - you do not see this kindof money being thrown around very often on the crypto-exchanges right now.

Read this and tell me if you believe Bitcoin will be a sound ETF investment for knowledgable players.

this could describe all of crypto-currency investment....extremely risky. The winklevie are probably(hopefully) targeting people where a mill is a very small percentage of their risk capital. otherwise it will be doomed to fail when small players can't hold it for long and have to sell into the stated inefficient market.

#2 and #5 are about the only ones that really matter - crypto's are always a risky investment (at least right now).  The risk/reward ratio is a factor, but trading volume is going to be what drives whether the big money gets involved.  If COIN is only moving $100k per day in volume, none of the big boys are going to bother screwing with it.

Agreed, 2 and 5 are the killers.

Granted, I don't know too much about investments pushed by pinstriped bandits. However, my impression of the average ETF is that it contains a basket of multiple securities, no? If so, why would a single-security ETF (e.g. COIN) be affected by #5 at all? The effort required to track a single security (e.g. Bitcoin) should be trivial, and therefore very efficient, should it not?

You're absolutely right and that's a good point. Classic ETFs are a bundle that together make up an investment category (like "technology") but it doesn't have to be that way. If someone can find a copy of the prospectus we can find out.

I believe this has more to do with internal management of the fund than anything.  Basically, how efficient & fast they are at fulfilling orders and reacting to price fluctuations in whatever they are benchmarking.  When you are day trading (or bot-trading) and seconds matter, this comes into play.

Well, here it is and it looks like Bitcoin all by itself.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312514457552/d721187ds1a.htm

"The Shares will consist of Bitcoin deposits"  This ain't no S&P 500 index ETF. They're fucked. lol

I don't get it. Who is fucked? The investors? The Winklevii? Those who do not invest? The SEC? The pinstriped bandits? Please clue me in.

nice find
cheers for link

what is your feeling about this etf? will it be allowed? will it be a flop?

The Winkleiidouches. lol

Uhm, I think that is the point - an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that is tied solely to the price of Bitcoin.  What were you expecting?

My opinion is that, if they get it through the system and get it listed it will be an enormous flop. I wonder how much of Zuckerberg's money they have jacked off between this and their BitInstant investment. ROFL

Read up the thread. I was responding to jbreher.

Care to explain why?

Tooooooo risky. Did you read the prospectus? If I was risking client money, I think I would risk their money on Somali oil reserves before this ETF.

Nahh man.. you're so wrong on so many fronts its crazy.. First Somali oil..... Really??   ;D

Also.. why would you not want the shares backed buy actual coin? what should it be backed by?? Promises?  HAHA.. Fedreserve anyone??

The winkidouch may not be the sharpest tools in the shed but they've got their shit on lock down with it comes to this ETF. and I can assure you it will be no FLOP..

Wanna make a "small" bet with me as to if its a flop or a success upon launch?

You don't really know what an ETF is do you Bob. lol

Meh, no riskier than plenty of other options out there, that are already doing $millions in trades every day.  Institutions will buy what their clients want.  If they want a high risk/reward investment option, COIN is likely to be on that list.

Fact is stranger than fiction, but I think this one is too risky (and small) for institutional investors. I'm going to have to see it to believe it. I'm not sure that it will even be approved.

Not sure enough to bet?

True - volume will definitely tell whether or not the big boys are even going to screw with it.  If we start seeing $millions moved in and out each day, it will at least catch their attention, risky or not.

This seems like very sound advice for years gone by.  But there's one more very important consideration.

We're overdue for a big stock market correction even by normal standards.  But many are saying that the massive, irresponsible money printing by all the major central banks is going to catch up with us at about the same time.  Plus, the US dollar is very likely to fall from it's position as world reserve currency.  Bad things are lining up to give us the big one.

Why is that relevant to the COIN ETF?

Because investors right now are scrambling to find something to invest in to protect their money.  Bonds don't look good.  Real estate seems to be inflating into another bubble.  Stocks are still performing well, but we expect them to loose half their value in the correction shortly.  PMs seem like an excellent bet, but the non-money status of PMs is different right now than at any time in recorded history, so caution is in order.  CD savings lose money against inflation and risk bank failure.  

What's left?  Diamonds and art, I guess, but you have to have a lot of knowledge to avoid getting ripped off.  Dollars under the bed actually has some appeal.


I'm guessing that a lot of investors are looking around for something, something they can invest in that will hold its value through the correction and ensuing depression.  The fact is, we don't know how bitcoin will perform because it hasn't been tested.  But I think a lot of people will be willing to find out.

Thanks haven't been checking up on the Winklevoss ETF for a while
At this price it might make for some nice investment as it gets mainstream attention.
(Even around a stock market crash some firestorms may occur)

I'll bet you everything I have left from timeshare coin.

   

 ;) :D ;)

LOL  I thought you'd like that one.  ;)

Not necessarily. There are hundreds of different ETFs and they have very different characteristics. COIN will basically be a tracking ETF, tracking the spot price of a single currency/commodity. A good example for this is the GLD ETF, which tracks the spot price of gold.


#5 is true for any security, not just for ETFs. Thinly traded markets are illiquid, easy to manipulate, and cause a lot of slippage (i.e., losses because of the difference between bid and ask).


The effort is trivial - I could probably code it on a PC in a couple of weeks (and most of that time will be spent on getting acquainted with the APIs of the exchanges and on testing). It's not the tracking algorithm that is the problem. It's that if the market is thinly traded (few buyers and sellers), it's easy for an entity to push it in a particular direction with a relatively small amount of money.

Also, you can lose even if the price doesn't move at all. For instance, suppose that there are only 1 buyer and 1 seller besides you and you buy 1 share at $45 from the seller and immediately try to sell it to the buyer, but he is offering only $35. Even if the price didn't move at all (because there were no other participants), you will lose money by exiting your trade.

I've seen both of these things happen in several thinly traded markets, like gold exploration companies, pink sheet shares and so on. It won't necessarily be a problem of COIN, but the advice quoted is a general investment advice, it is not aimed at a particular investment vehicle. We'll have to see how this ETF trades, in order to know if this is going to be a problem.

I don't think that the ETF-specific risks will be large enough to matter. I mean, they have a large enough amount of bitcoins and it's relatively trivial to make a tracking ETF. Speculating in a volatile commodity/currency like Bitcoin is very risky per se - but if you are willing to stomach that risk, I don't think that speculating in a Bitcoin-tracking ETF would be significantly riskier.

All of this is a moot point anyway. I don't see this ever getting past the SEC.

If the SEC allows Direxion (http://www.direxioninvestments.com/etfs)'s 3x leveraged ETFs (and they do), why on earth wouldn't they allow an ETF that follows bitcoin?

One of their prospectuses says they invest in futures contracts; opens on securities, indices and futures contracts; equity caps, floors and collars; swap agreements; forward contracts; short positions; reverse repurchases agreements; ETFs and other financial instruments.

Recognize those names?  Some of them are the derivatives that caused the financial meltdown in 2008.  Now you can meltdown too.

Or you can invest in bitcoin.

I'm with you - indeed, that is kind of my point. Note I said 'average ETF'. Granted, it would have been more grammatically correct to state 'typical ETF'.


Thanks. Here is #5 reproduced, as I've lost track:
5. Finally, very new or very small ETFs sometimes trade inefficiently, resulting in wide spreads between their buy and sell prices or failure to track their benchmarks accurately. Wait for an ETF to gather at least $100 million in assets before you invest in it.

Granted, I'm not familiar with ETFs in general. However, I read this essentially as 'your potential ETF may have a low ratio of available management bandwidth to basket market activity -- which may increase the risk that the fund does not accurately track the actual market'.


Got it. I was focused upon the "failure to track their benchmarks", while you feel the calculus is dominated by "wide spreads between their buy and sell prices". I defer to your apparent greater experience.

Because I'm not convinced that Wall Street and their puppet the SEC are particularly fond of Bitcoin.

A great idea and would really change the industry but is SEC approval likely? Does not seem to be the case:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/needham-winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-would-have-profound-impact-on-price-but-approval-unlikely-1484254628/

Hum, seems like I've heard that somewhere before.  ::)

Have you heard this?:)
http://www.coindesk.com/winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-100-million/

Yeah, I heard they were having troubles. Now that the deadline has been pushed to the max (240 days) it's likely to fail. The history of etfs show that only 1 in 20 that have been pushed to the maximum deadline are approved.

Two more are waiting for an approval as well (SolidX and Grayscale), hopefully in some time we will get there

The Winklevoss twins been waiting for that ETF for a very long time now. By the time the ETF will get released they will be oldmen and probably forget what Bitcoin even is!

Just joking of course.

Wow QuestionAuthority, you were right about this over two years ago. Here's the disapproval notice and what the SEC had to say about Bitcoin:

https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsbzx.htm

Maybe I do not understand what you said, so I beg to excuse me if I make a mistake, but the fact is that manipulations continue and the example of their existence is a sharp fluctuation in the price of bitcoin. I would not even be surprised if the administrations of trade exchanges take part in this.

Your joke has become somewhat true in this context as SEC has rejected bitcoin and the main concern they projected is that it is not regulated and it is a risk to investors because of its limited adoption and since bitcoin is a new technology they might reconsider it later and the good part is that the rejection did not make a big significant change in the price.

Well it is only a temporary setback. Bitcoin was created not just to be made into a Wall Street instrument. So with so many uses for blockchain technology and Bitcoin, a minor price setback I don't think will hurt the over all long term performance of Bitcoin. I think we are just getting started.  :)

Yes, I am also reading those brothers have not given up about the idea of bringing bitcoin ETF. That must be really a good news for very bitcoiners to delight and have hope about future bitcoin prices. It means prices will not fall as this will be a great supportive news for this community.

Bitcoin prices also confirming this like it trades stable around $1180 levels for the whole day. Stable prices are always signal for another rally, we may need to fasten our belts very soon again. ;)

Ok. time it got rejected, but I do believe they will submit a new request. So, the ETF could be accepted right in 2018. I'm positive that sooner or later the SEC will accept the Bitcoin ETF

Of course, the no that they recived is not definitive at all

but I think Bitcoin is best without ETF.  If SEC decision on rejecting ETF is because Bitcoin is unregulated, then ETF regarding Bitcoin will never be approved because Bitcoin Market proves to be at best when it is not regulated.  Besides,  if someone applied for something that needs regulation then we are moving out of Bitcoin strongest point.  The being unregulated currency.

While a lot of folks are wringing their hands over the ETF being shot down, I saw an article on Bitcoinist that
has a more positive take on things:

http://bitcoinist.com/6-reasons-etf-defeat-win-bitcoin/

The author raises several good points, especially with regards to the effect that a massive influx of new mainstream
investors' transactions would have on the bitcoin network and transaction times.

Sounds plausible really, and I have always thought that the increased traffic, higher frequency of congestion of longer tx times are really just matters and issues that a mature coin should be facing (and yes, I do mean mature in the context as first mover!).

I agree with you - the commission has already made its final decision. And I very much doubt that bitcoin will be approved in the next few years. But, fortunately, this practically did not affect the price of bitcoin

Unless Bitcoin removes all principles and traces of its original purpose, it's not going to happen.  The SEC were very clear on their concerns about fraud and money laundering carried out with Bitcoin, and these are realistically part of the Bitcoin network and they are not things that are just going to magically disappear (rightly so, to be honest).

I think people are missing the point of what the SEC said so I'll clean that meaning up for you:

That concern seems kind of silly. An ETF will likely batch all buys and sells of bitcoin needed to back ETF shares into a daily or hourly transaction. Their impact to the transaction rate would therefore be negligible.

It means btc is free from huge speculation,i really dont want to have any derivative bitcoin,may derivatives destroy fiat economy not btc

I am not sure if BTC is free from huge speculation because Bitcoin is going up in value even thought the ETF for Bitcoin didn't get approved by the SEC.
With a large current price and evading that large dump a couple of days ago, Bitcoin is looking pretty strong.

Fiat isn't getting that less valuable within these past days and the price of Bitcoin is going up pretty quickly, so I am pretty sure that Bitcoin is getting more expensive and more speculation will happen.