[2017-04-26] SEC Orders Review of Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF Rejection

[bbc.reporter]

Are reviews when something is rejected by the SEC normal and a part of the day to day routine that goes among with their regular work or is this review something special? The article is not really clear on that part of the story.

I want to ask some of you here who might have some experience working with the SEC or a government agency the overlooks financial matters and what your opinions are.



The SEC intends to review its decision to reject a bitcoin exchange-traded fund proposed by investors Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss.

As previously reported by CoinDesk, the SEC shot down a bid by the Winklevoss brothers to get the ETF listed on the Bats BZX exchange in March. Specifically, the agency declined a rule change proposed by Bats that would have cleared the path for the ETF, citing a lack of market surveillance and regulation.

Less than two weeks after the decision was handed down, Bats petitioned for a review – a move that the agency has now greenlit.

Read the full article http://www.coindesk.com/sec-orders-review-winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-rejection/

[panju1]

It is unlikely that the review will have a different result.
Unless circumstances change, it will be very difficult for the SEC to reverse its decision.

[Searing]

It is unlikely that the review will have a different result.
Unless circumstances change, it will be very difficult for the SEC to reverse its decision.

they pointed to unregulated nature of crypto currencies....and they are one of the first and most likely imho agencies
that should regulate bitcoin (if they choose to)

thus a pretty pure catch 22 that gets them off the hook for even trying.

We regulate ..unregulated finance..but can't regulate crypto finance because it currently is unregulated

sheesh (above i paraphrased..but the gist of a few lines I read)

they will use the same arguement a 2nd time to shoot it down

[2dogs]

Doesn't mean anything, IMHO.

The review justifies the government's existence and excuse to waste more taxpayers' funds.

We don't need the SEC involved in BTC, we don't need a BTC ETF.

They will ruin/manipulate it, just like the gold ETF.

Keep government OUT of BTC!

[Kemarit]

The Winklevoss brothers should give up already. Their ETF will not be approved the second time around. As far as I'm concerned, no ETF on bitcoin will ever be granted. I guess they should put their effort on other things. Just leave bitcoin for now, we don't need ETF anyway. Bitcoin price is soaring currently and people has the responsibility to know how to safeguard their bitcoin in their wallet. If their is another ETF is the horizon, it will more likely to be rejected by SEC as well.

[Slark]

Doesn't mean anything, IMHO.

The review justifies the government's existence and excuse to waste more taxpayers' funds.

Agree here. Another review won't change anything, the outcome will still be the same, rejection.
Bitcoin itself can't be regulated so every trading found based on it is not acceptable by SEC.

They will ruin/manipulate it, just like the gold ETF.

Keep government OUT of BTC!

So you think that currently Bitcoin is free from any manipulation? I honestly don't think so.
You are right that ETF will probably increase level of price manipulation by adding additional layer to it.
But we are not free from market manipulation now, we never were, we never will be.

[Kprawn]

It is unlikely that the review will have a different result.
Unless circumstances change, it will be very difficult for the SEC to reverse its decision.

they pointed to unregulated nature of crypto currencies....and they are one of the first and most likely imho agencies
that should regulate bitcoin (if they choose to)

thus a pretty pure catch 22 that gets them off the hook for even trying.

We regulate ..unregulated finance..but can't regulate crypto finance because it currently is unregulated

sheesh (above i paraphrased..but the gist of a few lines I read)

they will use the same arguement a 2nd time to shoot it down

I think they mostly pointed to the unregulated environment in other countries like China, but as we know this has changed a lot since then. The

Chinese exchanges manipulated the price on their un-regulated exchanges and this spilled over to the Western exchanges, even if they were

regulated. The Twins might have a foot to stand on now that the Chinese exchanges have been "raided" by their government. The scene also

changed a bit in Russia and Japan lately. { Some of the bigger countries } 

[Nagadota]

Doesn't mean anything, IMHO.

The review justifies the government's existence and excuse to waste more taxpayers' funds.

They have no incentive to deliberately waste taxpayer money.  Even if they're unlikely to approve it, doesn't mean that it's not reasonable to do a review.

We don't need the SEC involved in BTC, we don't need a BTC ETF.

They will ruin/manipulate it, just like the gold ETF.

Keep government OUT of BTC!

The ETF would just help wealthy investors get involved in Bitcoin.  I don't see it as a problem at all, just a means of the price rising and thus in the future becoming more stable.  Bitcoin is already heavily manipulated, but if there's at least a bit of liquidity that problem will be closer to fixed.

[2dogs]

But we are not free from market manipulation now, we never were, we never will be.

But of course.
My point is getting gov involved is adding more manipulation, bureaucracy.

[2dogs]

The ETF would just help wealthy investors get involved in Bitcoin.  I don't see it as a problem at all, just a means of the price rising and thus in the future becoming more stable.  Bitcoin is already heavily manipulated, but if there's at least a bit of liquidity that problem will be closer to fixed.

You are talking like you are in fantasy land.
Or course, it sounds great.

Research the gold ETF for starters.

[WestWorld]

I think they are doing this because they are subjective to something being kept out of the public's view of why it was rejected.
Something is not right there.

[Searing]

I think they are doing this because they are subjective to something being kept out of the public's view of why it was rejected.
Something is not right there.

The etf has other investors p/o'd about etf cluster failure. They are just wrapping this
whole fiasco up in a bow to appease investors imho. Window dressing.

[DocGTR]

I think they are doing this because they are subjective to something being kept out of the public's view of why it was rejected.
Something is not right there.

The etf has other investors p/o'd about etf cluster failure. They are just wrapping this
whole fiasco up in a bow to appease investors imho. Window dressing.

Yes, maybe you are right. No one knows the real reasons for what happened. The public does not talk about all the reasons. Therefore, we can only make assumptions.