ETF not passing can still be positive depending on the verdict

[thejaytiesto]

Remember that, even if the ETF doesn't pass, if the final verdict is overall positive (not passed, but few requirements for the next time, showing progress) the scenario would still be positive: It ultimately would mean we are closer to an ETF.


I think we may dip, but not as deep as people look at. And we may have even have a pump, after doubters jump in and market realizes it's just dumb to dump. Thought call on this one.

[1715637032]

1715637032

[1715637032]

1715637032

[1715637032]

1715637032

[1715637032]

1715637032

[york780]

No. This is the final deadline for Winklevoss ETF. Only aproval or dissaproval can be the outcome. They cant pospone and delay it anymore. So its a yes or a no.

[helloeverybody]

No. This is the final deadline for Winklevoss ETF. Only aproval or dissaproval can be the outcome. They cant pospone and delay it anymore. So its a yes or a no.

There are another 2 etfs in the works after the winklevoss twins so even if it was declined it would give the others a better chance of going through in the future since the would know what caused it to be declined. Imo the winklevoss deserve to get it first though since they have been going through the process for so long.

[york780]

It would be funny if Winklevoss COIN is not accepted and SolidX and greyscale will accepted. That would be a big big F**k you to the twins ^^

[btcmerich]

The verdict will be no or yes. So i do not understand " ETF not passing can still be positive depending on the Verdict "

As some one pointed out we  have three that are waiting for verdicts but something that is strange is we are having a downtrend before the verdicts  . Surely this downtrend is not just based on the news from china.

[Biodom]

i don't know if it passes or fails and, frankly, don't really care much.

As far as consequences are concerned, NOT passing at least one of ETFs soon would mean giving control of this asset flows to chinese hoarders. Do west governments want this? I doubt it.

Approve ETF and you have bitcoin under US/West control because ETF flows should/will vastly exceed all chinese exchanges combined.
As far as i am concerned, chinese bitcoin is dead, even if they don't know it yet for a simple reason that PBOC says that buying things using bitcoin should not be advisable. Therefore, what is the purpose of btc in China? I fail to see one, apart from hoarding it (like gold).

[btcmerich]

well i do not think western european or USA goverments care much about having control over bitcoin. They do care that their citizens do not use it to avoid tax or pay for drugs. Mostly see bitcoin as some  undeground tech for nerds and criminals , they do not see the ways of making bitcoin  working in their favour .

[harizen]

No. This is the final deadline for Winklevoss ETF. Only aproval or dissaproval can be the outcome. They cant pospone and delay it anymore. So its a yes or a no.

On the other hand if pointing to the price movement, I see it will didn't directly affect the behaviour of the price. Why? There is a so called community's response wherein any events that is taking placed, the price movement will depend on how hard the pumped or dump will be performed by the traders, investors and average joes.

I think we may dip, but not as deep as people look at. And we may have even have a pump, after doubters jump in and market realizes it's just dumb to dump. Thought call on this one.

Definitely yes. The support and resistance above $1,000 mark is really stabilizing. Hope the support will able to withstand the dumping activity that can make the price go back again to the 3 digit mark.

[york780]

i doubt it. 1000 USD is a psychical barrier. When we are moving to 1000 USD everyone will panic and sell. This time for some triple digits again.

[Biodom]

well i do not think western european or USA goverments care much about having control over bitcoin. They do care that their citizens do not use it to avoid tax or pay for drugs. Mostly see bitcoin as some  undeground tech for nerds and criminals , they do not see the ways of making bitcoin  working in their favour .

This is an uninformed point of view. They approved and licensed many institutions with multi billion $ flows.
Coinbase has 6 mil accounts already.
Many VCs (like Tim Draper) invested large sums in bitcoins directly and several congressman voiced their positive opinions on btc as well.

[Slow death]

Remember that, even if the ETF doesn't pass, if the final verdict is overall positive (not passed, but few requirements for the next time, showing progress) the scenario would still be positive: It ultimately would mean we are closer to an ETF.


I think we may dip, but not as deep as people look at. And we may have even have a pump, after doubters jump in and market realizes it's just dumb to dump. Thought call on this one.

The price is already falling

" ETF not passing can still be positive depending on the Verdict "

You should know that there will be a dump.

[york780]

A dump in a dump , negative x negative = positive.

[btcmerich]

well i do not think western european or USA goverments care much about having control over bitcoin. They do care that their citizens do not use it to avoid tax or pay for drugs. Mostly see bitcoin as some  undeground tech for nerds and criminals , they do not see the ways of making bitcoin  working in their favour .

This is an uninformed point of view. They approved and licensed many institutions with multi billion $ flows.
Coinbase has 6 mil accounts already.
Many VCs (like Tim Draper) invested large sums in bitcoins directly and several congressman voiced their positive opinions on btc as well.

Sure, they give out license to exchangers etc  and you have some in the congress being positive to Bitcoin but it does not say that they want to take over the driving seat directly

[isoneguy]

i doubt it. 1000 USD is a psychical barrier. When we are moving to 1000 USD everyone will panic and sell. This time for some triple digits again.

might be the last chance we'll get to buy this low...

[Biodom]

well i do not think western european or USA goverments care much about having control over bitcoin. They do care that their citizens do not use it to avoid tax or pay for drugs. Mostly see bitcoin as some  undeground tech for nerds and criminals , they do not see the ways of making bitcoin  working in their favour .

This is an uninformed point of view. They approved and licensed many institutions with multi billion $ flows.
Coinbase has 6 mil accounts already.
Many VCs (like Tim Draper) invested large sums in bitcoins directly and several congressman voiced their positive opinions on btc as well.

Sure, they give out license to exchangers etc  and you have some in the congress being positive to Bitcoin but it does not say that they want to take over the driving seat directly

This article suggests that they care more than you surmised:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-bitcoin-etf-approval-is-likely-72-percent-in-favor-so-far

....the approval of the Bitcoin ETF will place the SEC in a unique position to oversee the development of Bitcoin. It will also place the US at the forefront of Bitcoin development.
...the government will most likely want the Bitcoin ETF to be approved in order to maintain a more regulated Bitcoin market which it can oversee

[isoneguy]

Why would it want to regulate a market that it could manipulate outside of regulations as it currently stands?

[gentlemand]

There are another 2 etfs in the works after the winklevoss twins so even if it was declined it would give the others a better chance of going through in the future since the would know what caused it to be declined. Imo the winklevoss deserve to get it first though since they have been going through the process for so long.

If there is a denial the reason will be Bitcoin itself. Not much any application can do about that. Anyone reapplying in the short term would be throwing their money away because the only possible change on the horizon would be forkageddon. Better to wait and see what this beast gets up to.

[btcmerich]

@

well i do not think western european or USA goverments care much about having control over bitcoin. They do care that their citizens do not use it to avoid tax or pay for drugs. Mostly see bitcoin as some  undeground tech for nerds and criminals , they do not see the ways of making bitcoin  working in their favour .

This is an uninformed point of view. They approved and licensed many institutions with multi billion $ flows.
Coinbase has 6 mil accounts already.
Many VCs (like Tim Draper) invested large sums in bitcoins directly and several congressman voiced their positive opinions on btc as well.

Sure, they give out license to exchangers etc  and you have some in the congress being positive to Bitcoin but it does not say that they want to take over the driving seat directly

This article suggests that they care more than you surmised:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-bitcoin-etf-approval-is-likely-72-percent-in-favor-so-far

....the approval of the Bitcoin ETF will place the SEC in a unique position to oversee the development of Bitcoin. It will also place the US at the forefront of Bitcoin development.
...the government will most likely want the Bitcoin ETF to be approved in order to maintain a more regulated Bitcoin market which it can oversee

sorry but the article you linked do does not support anything . The thing here is  as we bitcoin fans can also agree on , that bitcoin is very easy to manipulate. Why would a goverment want to invest into that?

[richardsNY]

There are another 2 etfs in the works after the winklevoss twins so even if it was declined it would give the others a better chance of going through in the future since the would know what caused it to be declined. Imo the winklevoss deserve to get it first though since they have been going through the process for so long.

If there is a denial the reason will be Bitcoin itself. Not much any application can do about that. Anyone reapplying in the short term would be throwing their money away because the only possible change on the horizon would be forkageddon. Better to wait and see what this beast gets up to.

At this point the only reason this ETF might get disapproved is due to Bitcoin's volatile nature. But the point with that is, when that's really the reason it doesn't come through, how will this one, or maybe another one come through? The volatility won't likely diminish to such a level, that they find it stable enough to approve the next first ETF that comes their way.... But at this point everything is nothing more than empty speculation not really build on facts as at this point there aren't any until March 13 this month.

[Sundark]

No. This is the final deadline for Winklevoss ETF. Only aproval or dissaproval can be the outcome. They cant pospone and delay it anymore. So its a yes or a no.

It may be true for this particular ETF. It doesn't take much to change couple things under the hood and present slightly changed concept of ETF with changed name.
It is more than certain that in the end we will have Bitcoin ETF, owned by Winklevii or not. It maybe not in 2017 but certainly within next 3 years.

[gentlemand]

At this point the only reason this ETF might get disapproved is due to Bitcoin's volatile nature. But the point with that is, when that's really the reason it doesn't come through, how will this one, or maybe another one come through? The volatility won't likely diminish to such a level, that they find it stable enough to approve the next first ETF that comes their way.... But at this point everything is nothing more than empty speculation not really build on facts as at this point there aren't any until March 13 this month

I don't think volatility is any type of concern.

It's the governance, or lack thereof, or the excess thereof, or chaos thereof, that would be the biggest problem for them. That is completely out of their control, as it would be for the ETF applicants and an overwhelming majority of the users.

There is no way of protecting people from the protocol splitting, failing or ending up in a form that it didn't take when the ETF started. Gold will always be a lump of metal that doesn't do anything. Bitcoin could end up with very little resemblance to the form it has today.

[d5000]

At this point the only reason this ETF might get disapproved is due to Bitcoin's volatile nature. [...] The volatility won't likely diminish to such a level, that they find it stable enough to approve the next first ETF that comes their way....

I agree - and have also read it in several comments - that volatility is a concern for the SEC. Imagine a pension fonds investing in an asset that frequently dips 10-20% in a single day and can lose 70% in the course of a year or less.

But I don't agree that volatility can't be fought. Liquidity is already increasing, we have now less hard crashs and less steep rallies as in 2013, for example. Decentralized backing mechanisms, like the one I am proposing here for OpenBazaar, could lower volatility even further.

[gentlemand]

I agree - and have also read it in several comments - that volatility is a concern for the SEC. Imagine a pension fonds investing in an asset that frequently dips 10-20% in a single day and can lose 70% in the course of a year or less.

http://www.businessinsider.com/four-volatile-etfs-for-active-traders-2011-8?IR=T

There are ETFs that are custom designed to be as volatile as possible.

Any pension fund putting more than a fraction of 1 per cent of their money in Bitcoin needs immediate retiring. With no pension either.

[Biodom]

 Bitcoin could end up with very little resemblance to the form it has today.

Like Dow Jones or S&P500?
How many current Dow Jones companies were there 30 years ago?
Hint: less than half were there  and only 5 were there 50 years ago.
So what?
SEC should stop pretending that they care about investors:
#1 it is not true
#2 everybody knows about#1 already
#3 see #1

[gentlemand]

SEC should stop pretending that they care about investors:
#1 it is not true
#2 everybody knows about#1 already
#3 see #1

If my grandmother, not that any of them are alive, came to me and asked me whether she should invest a large sum in Bitcoin, I'd tell her to forget about it. I'm not going to endorse something with so many uncertainties where much far out stuff could still happen. This is still the experimental phase.

That's what the SEC does writ large. Sure, there are a million vested interests distorting everything they do, but they also know their shit and they have a huge burden of responsibility. What they say yes to carries an awful lot of weight. They rightly don't give a fuck about Bitcoin holders. It's everyone else out there. We'll be fine no matter what happens.

[richardsNY]

At this point the only reason this ETF might get disapproved is due to Bitcoin's volatile nature. [...] The volatility won't likely diminish to such a level, that they find it stable enough to approve the next first ETF that comes their way....

I agree - and have also read it in several comments - that volatility is a concern for the SEC. Imagine a pension fonds investing in an asset that frequently dips 10-20% in a single day and can lose 70% in the course of a year or less.

But I don't agree that volatility can't be fought. Liquidity is already increasing, we have now less hard crashs and less steep rallies as in 2013, for example. Decentralized backing mechanisms, like the one I am proposing here for OpenBazaar, could lower volatility even further.

I totally agree that the market in numerous ways is maturing more and more, but we can't just discard the fact that at this point, and likely also in the far future, Bitcoin is and will remain a free market. It means that whatever entity can buy or dump whatever number of coins at once influencing the market significantly. In case of a dump, the higher the price goes, the weaker the support gets in form of coin quantity.

Example -- at a price of $500 you could place a 2000 BTC buy wall being worth $1,000,000 to offer support. If you use that $1,000,000 right now to support the price, it will only account for ~870 BTC. Current whales and early birds will only become more influential in that regard.

[isoneguy]

We'll be fine no matter what happens.

with one exception but I won't mention it ever again

[Wind_FURY]

Remember that, even if the ETF doesn't pass, if the final verdict is overall positive (not passed, but few requirements for the next time, showing progress) the scenario would still be positive: It ultimately would mean we are closer to an ETF.

You are contradicting yourself sir. The decision IS the verdict. Please look up the word "verdict" in the dictionary. Thanks.

I think we may dip, but not as deep as people look at. And we may have even have a pump, after doubters jump in and market realizes it's just dumb to dump. Thought call on this one.

We are together with this one though. I do not think the ETF disapproval will affect Bitcoin that much negatively. It will for those who bought at the current highs because they are hoping and thinking that the ETF will be approved. But as a holder, I do not care much what happens.

[BillyBobZorton]

Even if the ETF does not pass, it will be a Winklevoss fail, not bitcoin.

The Winklevii will not be in a very good position. It means they were not able to convince the regulators, a defeat on their curriculums. But again, bitcoin can have more ETFs by other people. Sooner or later we will have it.


Ultimately, bitcoin's value is in its technology, and Core team continues to do a good job.

[leopard2]

I cannot believe that a no is final, I am almost sure that there would be reasons given and the obstacles could be remedied.

Anyone who is not a securities lawyer should stop writing nonsense

Actually there is an article on Coinbase saying that the whole process could be another 6 months.

Now lets look at the numbers. 100 Million ETF....BTC market cap is like 17 BILLION. Technically the ETF is less than 1% of BTC market cap, rest is psychology, LOL at the doomsayers. 

[Wind_FURY]

I cannot believe that a no is final, I am almost sure that there would be reasons given and the obstacles could be remedied.

What do you mean? I heard the ruling will be out on Monday unless I am mistaken.

Anyone who is not a securities lawyer should stop writing nonsense

Give room to speculate and make comments. But yes, I do agree most of the comments are coming from posters who are nitwits.

Actually there is an article on Coinbase saying that the whole process could be another 6 months.

Link?

Now lets look at the numbers. 100 Million ETF....BTC market cap is like 17 BILLION. Technically the ETF is less than 1% of BTC market cap, rest is psychology, LOL at the doomsayers. 

It will not he as simple as that once it starts trading. Speculators could pump it like it is more valuable than Bitcoin itself.

[olushakes]

Remember that, even if the ETF doesn't pass, if the final verdict is overall positive (not passed, but few requirements for the next time, showing progress) the scenario would still be positive: It ultimately would mean we are closer to an ETF.


I think we may dip, but not as deep as people look at. And we may have even have a pump, after doubters jump in and market realizes it's just dumb to dump. Thought call on this one.

Its high time we need to start seeing beyond this ETF whether it will come positive ir negative. For me, I believe either way this comes out, I know bitcoin will still stand afterall we have been standing before all this brouhaha concerning ETF. If this didnt work, another opportunity will come as the future is full with opportunities for bitcoin to unleash its potentials.

[oaks05]

Even if it fails there are two more ETF's not far behind that are will know what it needs to do to make it go through when its there turn no need to worry.

[jacafbiz]

No. This is the final deadline for Winklevoss ETF. Only aproval or dissaproval can be the outcome. They cant pospone and delay it anymore. So its a yes or a no.

But I read somewhere that the SEC may decided not to make any pronouncement on it and will result to default approval.

[Kemarit]

While there is much money to be made (or lost) depending which way the SEC rules, the waiting is almost over. We already heard the pro's and con's of it, all of it. Let me just say that that SEC has already decided the fate o Bitcoin ETF already maybe a few weeks ago unstable price, the scalability issue etc. But I have a feeling that SEC will want to delay this again and will push back on this. Just my thought. 

[btcmerich]

While there is much money to be made (or lost) depending which way the SEC rules, the waiting is almost over. We already heard the pro's and con's of it, all of it. Let me just say that that SEC has already decided the fate o Bitcoin ETF already maybe a few weeks ago unstable price, the scalability issue etc. But I have a feeling that SEC will want to delay this again and will push back on this. Just my thought. 

read what i and others have said about ETF verdict. It can not be delayed, if no verdict then it is approved by default.

[Reid]

It will be a positive one.
Adding up those who have seen the news in SEC which are investors that somehow they might get curious with this happening.
Specially those who didn't even know bitcoin exist will try to research it and maybe be an addition to buyers or could invest. It will be a special day, pass or not.

[Wind_FURY]

Even if it fails there are two more ETF's not far behind that are will know what it needs to do to make it go through when its there turn no need to worry.

Who is worried? No one except the people who bought Bitcoins because the anticipated or more likely hoped that the ETF will be approved. Those same people panicked and dumped their coins. That is a big mistake in my opinion. The clearly do not know that the biggest market of Bitcoin will become worth more than a billion dollars in 5 years. The dark markets.