Was the SEC right after all?

[shinratensei_]

the only reason the twinkle-toes wanted SEC adoption was to fill their pockets. They are heavily invested.

their application must have cost many millions but don't forget they have over 100,000 coins with an average buy of about $10. their pockets are already filled pretty nice.

They've had millions dollars. ETF is just about the bitcoin business and the winklevii will take the advantages from its decision. But the big problem in here is a hardfork for the bitcoin. Bucoin and every bitcoin hodler will get free bucoin. It's free money but will decrease the value of bitcoin.

[Hydrogen]

The SEC is owned and run by bankers.

They're not an independent organization free from conflicts of interest.

The same can be said of credit rating agencies and any regulation of financial and banking sectors.

What the SEC says is merely a reflection of what bankers tell them to say.

If the SEC was a real regulatory agency, the 2008 bank crisis would never have happened.

If the SEC was a real regulatory agency, banks wouldn't have trillions in derivatives exposure.

There's a revolving door history of politicians and executives from the banking industry filling SEC posts and vice versa.

[Uberse]

If the SEC was a real regulatory agency, the 2008 bank crisis would never have happened.

Interesting point: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030215/how-mortgage-backed-securities-mbs-etfs-work.asp

[n0ne]

the only reason the twinkle-toes wanted SEC adoption was to fill their pockets. They are heavily invested.

their application must have cost many millions but don't forget they have over 100,000 coins with an average buy of about $10. their pockets are already filled pretty nice.

They've millions dollar. ETF is just about the bitcoin business and the winklevii will take the advantages from its decision. But the big problem in here is a hardfork for the bitcoin. Bucoin and every bitcoin hodler will get free bucoin. It's free money but will decrease the value of bitcoin.

We cannot conclude how perfect SEC was, because we just go based on the information gathered from different sources. SEC committee themselves made committee's to work on different factors related to approval and rejection. As quoted the Etf too is not a big concern, the hard fork is getting into complication due to the existence of Bucoin.

[aardvark15]

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

What happened on Coinbase with the ETC/ETH fork? Did other exchanges handle it differently? I'm a little out of the loop on that coin, but I do have BTC so I would like to know what to expect.

[cpfreeplz]

The SEC didn't say the price wasn't stable or whatever stupid shit you're trying to say. It was declined because bitcoins aren't regulated by a government agency. A quick google would have gotten you that answer.

[dearbesz1219]

Yes I think so, because SEC usually they just approved something if there is benefits that they get. Now concerning about the etf winklevos, it is rght that sec rejected it. Actually, by refusing it, I saw their interest and there intention it wouldn't succeed because of the decentralization of bitcoin.

[indiangrad]

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

Last time, with the ETC/ETH fork, coinbase ripped off their ETH users of the ETC part of their holdings, so maybe they want to do this again ?

So did they pocket the rest for themselves?

[Juggy777]

SEC was right in a way that it could not give permission to Bitcoins Etf but is It right to assume that the prices will crash if it didn't was wrong. The fork statement has taken the steam outside the market of Bitcoin and now it's a matter of not when but if the prices of Bitcoins come crashing down. Once again the community has divided itself and we are going to be paying a huge price. The SEC would obviously not allow such kind of Etf to be passed away, they are bound by their regulators and rules do we all should just pray, that better sense prevails.

[jacaf01]

The SEC didn't say the price wasn't stable or whatever stupid shit you're trying to say. It was declined because bitcoins aren't regulated by a government agency. A quick google would have gotten you that answer.

Yes, the main point for rejecting the ETF is because Bitcoin is unregulated. I have said Bitcoin is not ready for ETF, just look at the way the value lost $200 in a day. When the market matured enough we will get there but not now.

[mr.mister]

The SEC didn't say the price wasn't stable or whatever stupid shit you're trying to say. It was declined because bitcoins aren't regulated by a government agency. A quick google would have gotten you that answer.

Yes, the main point for rejecting the ETF is because Bitcoin is unregulated. I have said Bitcoin is not ready for ETF, just look at the way the value lost $200 in a day. When the market matured enough we will get there but not now.

And to add to that, why on earth would the ETF accept Bitcoin with the current conflict with the dumbass miners who could potentially sink Bitcoin?

[Cashew]

The SEC didn't say the price wasn't stable or whatever stupid shit you're trying to say. It was declined because bitcoins aren't regulated by a government agency. A quick google would have gotten you that answer.

Yes, the main point for rejecting the ETF is because Bitcoin is unregulated. I have said Bitcoin is not ready for ETF, just look at the way the value lost $200 in a day. When the market matured enough we will get there but not now.

And to add to that, why on earth would the ETF accept Bitcoin with the current conflict with the dumbass miners who could potentially sink Bitcoin?

Yeah, considering the troubles we are in now, that would be the worst moment to accept it. For this reason, considering all can be worst by March 31st, the other ETF, SolidX will also be rejected I think.

[Xester]

Given the price drop (presumably caused by or related to the Hardfork Statement 3.17, at https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1), can we conclude that the SEC was correct to refuse the Winklevoss' ETF? It would certainly seem so. (It would also seem certain that the SolidX ETF will be refused as well, in spite of Chinese exchanges becoming increasingly regulated.)

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States of America was right of disapproving the ETF. They have seen the current situation of bitcoin together with the very slow confirmation of transactions and higher miner fees which is not very friendly to the users. If this continues it will be clear that all ETF will be refused by the SEC. But maybe this time SOLIDX will be lucky since before its approval Bitcoin Unlimited core have been separated to bitcoin network. THe SolidX ETF may just be approved by the SEC if all problems in the bitcoin network will be settled before its evaluation.

[Hazir]

Yeah, considering the troubles we are in now, that would be the worst moment to accept it. For this reason, considering all can be worst by March 31st, the other ETF, SolidX will also be rejected I think.

There is no good or bad time for bitcoin to be approved by SEC. We are amidst scaling debate, so what?
Bitcoin cannot be regulated, it will be never ideal and totally valid asset to work as a fuel for ETFs.
Unless bitcoin will be castrated somehow it won't met regulatory laws created for FIAT based financial institutions.

[Kprawn]

The current dip in the price has nothing to do with the SEC.... You will see a big DASH and ETH pump now, and then it will crash again. People are

making money out of this whole situation. In the end, most of this will return to normal when these people dumped their Alt coins and bought

Bitcoin again. The SEC is being controlled by banks.... so most of us expected that it would not be approved. 

[paul gatt]

A bitcoin branch of the junction, which gives a lot of bitcoin. And according to the information I know, BU is likely to work and grow similar to an alt coin whether it works or not. I do not know about ETF in countries, but in my opinion, Bitcoin is hard to accept ETF and it should not be accepted ETF, which will inhibit its development. Imagine, bitcoin is booming by its purity and freedom, if it's legal, every deal is managed, we have to pay a fee if we use it, it's good for us.

[Iranus]

Given the price drop (presumably caused by or related to the Hardfork Statement 3.17, at https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1), can we conclude that the SEC was correct to refuse the Winklevoss' ETF? It would certainly seem so. (It would also seem certain that the SolidX ETF will be refused as well, in spite of Chinese exchanges becoming increasingly regulated.)

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States of America was right of disapproving the ETF. They have seen the current situation of bitcoin together with the very slow confirmation of transactions and higher miner fees which is not very friendly to the users. If this continues it will be clear that all ETF will be refused by the SEC. But maybe this time SOLIDX will be lucky since before its approval Bitcoin Unlimited core have been separated to bitcoin network. THe SolidX ETF may just be approved by the SEC if all problems in the bitcoin network will be settled before its evaluation.

The SEC was right in disapproving the ETF, but not for the reasons that you mentioned.  I think they were a lot more concerned about Bitcoin's use in fraud than with any other aspect of it or its current state.

[aso118]

The current dip in the price has nothing to do with the SEC.... You will see a big DASH and ETH pump now, and then it will crash again. People are making money out of this whole situation. In the end, most of this will return to normal when these people dumped their Alt coins and bought Bitcoin again. The SEC is being controlled by banks.... so most of us expected that it would not be approved. 

If the ETF had been approved and we witnessed such volatility, the SEC might look foolish with billions of dollars of investor wealth being wiped out. And they would have had to investigate allegations of market manipulation. So they just played safe and rejected the ETF.

[mr.mister]

The current dip in the price has nothing to do with the SEC.... You will see a big DASH and ETH pump now, and then it will crash again. People are making money out of this whole situation. In the end, most of this will return to normal when these people dumped their Alt coins and bought Bitcoin again. The SEC is being controlled by banks.... so most of us expected that it would not be approved. 

If the ETF had been approved and we witnessed such volatility, the SEC might look foolish with billions of dollars of investor wealth being wiped out. And they would have had to investigate allegations of market manipulation. So they just played safe and rejected the ETF.

Bitcoin should have nothing to do with the sec, we don't need them. I am glad they rejected, and I hope they will continue to do so.

[peter0425]

Given the price drop (presumably caused by or related to the Hardfork Statement 3.17, at https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1), can we conclude that the SEC was correct to refuse the Winklevoss' ETF? It would certainly seem so. (It would also seem certain that the SolidX ETF will be refused as well, in spite of Chinese exchanges becoming increasingly regulated.)

Regarding that Hardfork Statement, I notice that neither Gemini nor Coinbase signed it. Anybody know why? (Apologies if this has already been talked to death.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States of America was right of disapproving the ETF. They have seen the current situation of bitcoin together with the very slow confirmation of transactions and higher miner fees which is not very friendly to the users. If this continues it will be clear that all ETF will be refused by the SEC. But maybe this time SOLIDX will be lucky since before its approval Bitcoin Unlimited core have been separated to bitcoin network. THe SolidX ETF may just be approved by the SEC if all problems in the bitcoin network will be settled before its evaluation.

I hope the SolidX will be approved by SEC, the only difference I saw is the insurance setup, I think SolidX has more coin are somewhat insured while the Winklevoss twins ones are not. It wil be interesting to see how SEC rejected the Winklevoss ETF then approving this SolidX. Reason why SEC rejected the Winklevoss twins is that bitcoin is unregulated. Not about how the price is unstable.