SHOCKER: SEC denies SolidX Bitocin ETF Proposal

[HabBear]

Ah, obviously not a surprise here. If the Winklevii get denied there's no reason for SolidX to get approved...it was all based on bias toward the bitcoin market, rather than actual concern for the investment product or firm.

News came out about an hour ago: http://www.coindesk.com/sec-denies-solidx-bitcoin-etf-proposal/

I believe the SEC's response/explanation was a bit more specific this time around. They explicitly say "the market must be regulated." That's more bold than the first ETF denial, yeah? And pretty much guarantees that Wall Street investors will never have an alley way to Bitcoin from Wall Street.

Other thoughts?

[1713555146]

1713555146

[coolcoinz]

They denied the ETF because it had no insurance for their clients. SolidX hasn't done anything to fix this, so they got denied as well.
Not much of a shocker, really. This is not a final ruling, they can appeal or adjust and file again.

[maku]

The SEC wrote:

"The Commission believes that, in order to meet this standard, an exchange that lists and trades shares of commodity-trust exchange-traded products ("ETPs") must,
in addition to other applicable requirements, satisfy two requirements that are dispositive in this matter.

First, the exchange must have surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets for trading the underlying commodity or derivatives on that commodity.

And second, those markets must be regulated."

So unless we can somehow regulate bitcoin (haha, fat chance) there is no way that SEC will approve any ETF based on any form of decentralized cryptocurrency.
I don't want to speculate that we will NEVER see any ETF appeted, but it is hard to imagine in the foreseeable future.

[bettercrypto]

Well it is not a surprise.  Actually it is also what I expected for the reason coolcoinz said.

They denied the ETF because it had no insurance for their clients. SolidX hasn't done anything to fix this so they got denied as well.
Not much of a shocker, really. This is not a final ruling, they can appeal or adjust and file again.

Unless Bitcoin create a central authority, I do not think this ETF will ever be approved.  But creating such will just go against the reason why Bitcoin is created anyway.  So I guess Bitcoin can go on without this ETF.  Why does Bitcoin need it anyway?  Anyone know the reason?

[coolcoinz]

Well it is not a surprise.  Actually it is also what I expected for the reason coolcoinz said.

They denied the ETF because it had no insurance for their clients. SolidX hasn't done anything to fix this so they got denied as well.
Not much of a shocker, really. This is not a final ruling, they can appeal or adjust and file again.

Unless Bitcoin create a central authority, I do not think this ETF will ever be approved.  But creating such will just go against the reason why Bitcoin is created anyway.  So I guess Bitcoin can go on without this ETF.  Why does Bitcoin need it anyway?  Anyone know the reason?

I think that's what BU tried to achieve with their council, but I guess they'd quickly change their minds if someone lost money trading and decided to sue them Roger and friends. 
ETF has a chance if Bitcoin becomes more stable. Maybe in a couple years there will be less red tape and knuckleheads at SEC, we'll see.

Bitcoin used to go without ETF for 7 years, there's no reason it wouldn't continue.

[peter0425]

Well it is not a surprise.  Actually it is also what I expected for the reason coolcoinz said.

They denied the ETF because it had no insurance for their clients. SolidX hasn't done anything to fix this so they got denied as well.
Not much of a shocker, really. This is not a final ruling, they can appeal or adjust and file again.

Unless Bitcoin create a central authority, I do not think this ETF will ever be approved.  But creating such will just go against the reason why Bitcoin is created anyway.  So I guess Bitcoin can go on without this ETF.  Why does Bitcoin need it anyway?  Anyone know the reason?

The way I understand it, if SEC approved the Bitcoin ETF, it will be officially tradable on Stock Exchanges like NYSE and COIN on Bats. So if they are tradable, Bitcoin ecosystem will have cash flow from investors or people who are not technological savvy but just want to benefit or gain profit from bitcoin's financial performances. Just correct me if I'm wrong here.

[maku]

The way I understand it, if SEC approved the Bitcoin ETF, it will be officially tradable on Stock Exchanges like NYSE and COIN on Bats. So if they are tradable, Bitcoin ecosystem will have cash flow from investors or people who are not technological savvy but just want to benefit or gain profit from bitcoin's financial performances. Just correct me if I'm wrong here.

You are right when you said that ETF is a way to allow institutional capital to invest into BTC. But it wouldn't be direct investment.
But companies which invested in ETF wouldn't own their own bitcoins. Shareholders do not directly own or have any assets beside shares issued by ETF.

[SaShiRaJaVu]

Unless Bitcoin create a central authority, I do not think this ETF will ever be approved.  But creating such will just go against the reason why Bitcoin is created anyway.  So I guess Bitcoin can go on without this ETF.  Why does Bitcoin need it anyway?  Anyone know the reason?

Bitcoin did not start to be regulated and controlled by a group and if that happens it is really bad and that was not the vision what satoshi wanted to have,one thing i am sure is that ETF will be approved at a later time ,you really cannot rush things as the SEC needs more evidence and confidence that it would perform in the level they wanted to approve something like bitcoin,the situation will change in a couple of years.

[freedomno1]

Ah, obviously not a surprise here. If the Winklevii get denied there's no reason for SolidX to get approved...it was all based on bias toward the bitcoin market, rather than actual concern for the investment product or firm.

News came out about an hour ago: http://www.coindesk.com/sec-denies-solidx-bitcoin-etf-proposal/

I believe the SEC's response/explanation was a bit more specific this time around. They explicitly say "the market must be regulated." That's more bold than the first ETF denial, yeah? And pretty much guarantees that Wall Street investors will never have an alley way to Bitcoin from Wall Street.

Other thoughts?

Saw it coming there will not be an exception unless the SEC is the one operating the fund itself.
Or some well developed banker cough Goldman Sachs etc decides to twist some arms and create their own fund to address the concerns and take some of the profits but my bet is that they tend to be going blockchain at the moment so when they are ready instead their idea will be to make their own Blockchain based funds for listing later.

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/what-if-i-told-you-full/

[aardvark15]

This apparently hasn't had a huge affect on the price, at least yet. Maybe it was expected that the ETF would be denied or maybe the price hasn't reacted yet.

[panju1]

This apparently hasn't had a huge affect on the price, at least yet. Maybe it was expected that the ETF would be denied or maybe the price hasn't reacted yet.

It is a non-news item. When the Winklewii ETF was rejected, the market factored in all other Bitcoin ETFs being rejected.
Right now, the market is focused on the possibility of a hard fork and Bitcoin Unlimited. 

[ImHash]

They want a huge exchange service with huge market that could handle (hold) large amounts of bitcoins at all times and be regulated, meaning giving them the authority to freeze funds at any given time, otherwise I'm sure that they're not stupid to think bitcoin network could possibly become regulated.
If investors want to benefit from the market fluctuations of bitcoin then they should first understand that a centralized and regulated currency would've never had such volatile market because an organization in control of such currency is able to induce stability artificially, same old banking system.

You can't have light and shade both at the same time in same place you know? bitcoin and regulation though are like that, you might regulate part of the market but users will abandon that part and move to an unregulated parts and you could continue chasing the exchanges to shove them regulation pills but online world is extremely hard to keep track of everyone and every thing.

[X-ray]

They denied the ETF because it had no insurance for their clients. SolidX hasn't done anything to fix this, so they got denied as well.
Not much of a shocker, really. This is not a final ruling, they can appeal or adjust and file again.

This is the main concern.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312513279830/d562329ds1.htm#tx562329_4

In my opinion if the winklevii ETF is the main bitcoin ETF proposal. If that was ignored by the SEC and another bitcoin ETF will have the same result. I believe it.

[housebtc]

I don't think this is a shocker as you tend to want to paint it, since Winkelvos ETF was regected I don't expect any of them to be accepted soon especially now that there is infighting in Bitcoin space. What defense would some make for or against hard fork   

[pooya87]

obviously!
the other ETF was a bigger one with a long history, and this one although being close it didn't have enough support. and ETF is mostly denying them because it is bitcoin and the market is (as you said) not regulated.

the funny part is the effect on price, this one was so small it had almost no effect on price. some are trying to dump the price but it is resisting a lot
Winkle ETF dropped the price in a blinking of an eye!

[deisik]

Well it is not a surprise.  Actually it is also what I expected for the reason coolcoinz said.

They denied the ETF because it had no insurance for their clients. SolidX hasn't done anything to fix this so they got denied as well.
Not much of a shocker, really. This is not a final ruling, they can appeal or adjust and file again.

Unless Bitcoin create a central authority, I do not think this ETF will ever be approved.  But creating such will just go against the reason why Bitcoin is created anyway.  So I guess Bitcoin can go on without this ETF.  Why does Bitcoin need it anyway?  Anyone know the reason?

The way I understand it, if SEC approved the Bitcoin ETF, it will be officially tradable on Stock Exchanges like NYSE and COIN on Bats. So if they are tradable, Bitcoin ecosystem will have cash flow from investors or people who are not technological savvy but just want to benefit or gain profit from bitcoin's financial performances. Just correct me if I'm wrong here

And what would it change essentially?

Who is going to buy these shares anyway? Those who can buy them can buy bitcoins directly. Void of real economy backing up Bitcoin value, there is only one way to make money off Bitcoin, i.e. to buy it cheap and sell it dear. Institutional investors likely know that better than anyone else and would stay away from Bitcoin like a plague. In any case, it is surely not the Bitcoin ecosystem that will have cash flowing in, it is the dudes behind these ETF's that will be able to cash out when the price goes up temporarily on the paroxysm of enthusiasm due to ETF approval

[talkbitcoin]

and again, who cares
the other ETF didn't do anything for us and this one and the other ones in the future aren't going to do anything either. even if it were approved it is a third party selling "promise" not the real thing. it may be a tiny bit better to show bitcoin as a legit investment but i can not see how that can have any kind of significant effect either with approval or without.

[PokerDiceMan]

I think must wait several time is want proposal aprove ETF
because , in march 11, 2017  winklevoss rejected, i think must wait and develop about bitcoin, lacking in proposals Winklevoss first must be repaired , before repaired proposal  i think only rejected again

[Hydrogen]

Unless Bitcoin create a central authority, I do not think this ETF will ever be approved.  But creating such will just go against the reason why Bitcoin is created anyway.  So I guess Bitcoin can go on without this ETF.  Why does Bitcoin need it anyway?  Anyone know the reason?

A BTC ETF being approved by the SEC would give bitcoin more credibility/legitimacy & the price would likely go up as a result.

An ETF would also give investors a safer way to invest in bitcoin, being that many ETF's have some form of insurance.

It would give people more options and methods to invest in btc/crypto.

[genny2kuk]

I wouldn't actually call the rejection a shocker since it's being speculated after the EFT reject. 'Control' sorry I meant to say regulation has always being the goal of the government. Unfortunately, the philosophy of bitcoin negates control of any sort.

I won't be surprised if the bankers spin off some idea from this incidence and get theirs accepted.