Buy bitcoins on Nasdaq

[vokain]

I think failure to deliver is illegal.

it may be illegal but it sure isn't enforced, sirixm has been dealing with this for years, and recently I learned that treasuries I think it was was getting fails to deliver as well.

Edit: yep, fails to deliver on treasuries...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-17/following-surge-fails-deliver-two-year-highs-treasury-market-finds-brief-respite

and no one holds them liable, even the asset holders? Seems like there would be a market opening for attorneys here.

[1714663174]

1714663174

[1714663174]

1714663174

[1714663174]

1714663174

[1714663174]

1714663174

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think failure to deliver is illegal already covered under some business law, contract law I imagine

Sadly failure to deliver is not illegal.  Reg SHO prohibits dealers from shorting unless they have borrowed the asset in question this ensures that it is impossible to fail to deliver (if you borrow the asset first and then short it, when settlement comes it is impossible to not be able to make delivery).  However Reg SHO provides plenty of exemptions, if you meet one of the exemptions then Reg SHO doesn't apply and you can naked short sell. If you can't deliver that is a contractual dispute but assuming your failure to deliver arises from being exempt from Reg SHO then you haven't broken the regs.  Even if your failure to deliver is the result of breaking Reg SHO the failure to deliver is simply how you got caught the violation occurred when the short was made in violation of Reg SHO (you didn't have the asset in hand when shorting).  If you break Reg SHO and borrow after the fact and thus are able to deliver you are still in violation it just likely means you won't get caught.

Don't try to apply logic like I said it will just make your head hurt. The regs "could" simply require everyone at all times and for all reasons always have the asset in hand before selling.  Period.  The fact that the regs aren't written that way and the SEC sees a 50% reduction in failure to deliver as a "win" (which still means hundreds of billions in failures to deliver) just shows the law was written the way the powers that be wanted it written.

[vokain]

I think failure to deliver is illegal already covered under some business law, contract law I imagine

Sadly failure to deliver is not illegal.  Reg SHO prohibits dealers from shorting unless they have borrowed the asset in question this ensures that it is impossible to fail to deliver (if you borrow the asset first and then short it, when settlement comes it is impossible to not deliver the asset).  However Reg SHO provides plenty of exemptions, if you meet one of the exemptions then Reg SHO doesn't apply and you can naked short sell. If you can't deliver that is a contractual dispute but assuming your failure to deliver arises from being exempt from Reg SHO then you haven't broken the regs.  Even if your failure to deliver is the result of breaking Reg SHO the failure to deliver is simply how you got caught the violation occurred when the short was made in violation of Reg SHO (you didn't have the asset in hand when shorting).  If you break Reg SHO and borrow after the fact and thus are able to deliver you are still in violation it just likely means you won't get caught.

Don't try to apply logic like I said it will just make your head hurt. The regs "could" simply require everyone at all times and for all reasons always have the asset in hand before selling.  Period.  The fact that the regs aren't written that way and the SEC sees a 50% reduction in failure to deliver as a "win" (which still means hundreds of billions in failures to deliver) just shows the law was written the way the powers that be wanted it written.

That's absolutely absurd. Why are bad laws and regs so hard to repeal??

[CurbsideProphet]

I think failure to deliver is illegal already covered under some business law, contract law I imagine

Sadly failure to deliver is not illegal.  Reg SHO prohibits dealers from shorting unless they have borrowed the asset in question this ensures that it is impossible to fail to deliver (if you borrow the asset first and then short it, when settlement comes it is impossible to not deliver the asset).  However Reg SHO provides plenty of exemptions, if you meet one of the exemptions then Reg SHO doesn't apply and you can naked short sell. If you can't deliver that is a contractual dispute but assuming your failure to deliver arises from being exempt from Reg SHO then you haven't broken the regs.  Even if your failure to deliver is the result of breaking Reg SHO the failure to deliver is simply how you got caught the violation occurred when the short was made in violation of Reg SHO (you didn't have the asset in hand when shorting).  If you break Reg SHO and borrow after the fact and thus are able to deliver you are still in violation it just likely means you won't get caught.

Don't try to apply logic like I said it will just make your head hurt. The regs "could" simply require everyone at all times and for all reasons always have the asset in hand before selling.  Period.  The fact that the regs aren't written that way and the SEC sees a 50% reduction in failure to deliver as a "win" (which still means hundreds of billions in failures to deliver) just shows the law was written the way the powers that be wanted it written.

That's absolutely absurd. Why are bad laws and regs so hard to repeal??

Because money talks and well, you know the rest...

[tabbek]

beware shameless plug 

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1685

The Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust will be approved by the SEC within 6 months.

[btceic]

11:41 am
Jul 5, 2013
A Q&A with Bitcoin Backer Tyler Winklevoss
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/05/a-qa-with-bitcoin-backer-tyler-winklevoss/

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the twins best known for their role in the history of Facebook, have had their fair share of headlines this week. The reason, of course, is their plan to come to market with an exchange-traded product giving  investors exposure to Bitcoin, a virtual currency that exists outside the realms of governments and central banks.

They filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for a public listing of the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust with a proposed valuation of $20m.

The value of the Bitcoin market has fluctuated in recent months but is currently valued at around $1bn. The Winklevoss twins say they own about 1% of the total Bitcoin stock.

There are risks, there is more than a little intrigue.

Tyler Winklevoss discussed the trust, its target market and potential future projects with sister title Financial News.

Financial News: Who is your target market? Who will buy this type of exchange-traded fund and why?

Tyler Winklevoss: Anyone who can’t get exposure to Bitcoin — such as pension funds —- or anyone who doesn’t want to go through the hassle of buying or physically storing it, such as mainstream retail investors. The best metaphor is to compare it to gold. How many people actually directly buy and hold gold bars? The gold ETCs [exchange-traded commodities] made it possible for investors to do that indirectly.

FN: Will the SEC approve this and when?

TW: It’s the first-ever digital math-based asset ETP [exchange-traded product], so it represents a whole new frontier. We haven’t talked with the SEC yet, but we think that, in this situation, they are likely to have more questions than they might for something that’s been done before.

FN: Who will be the lead market makers and authorized participants?

TW: It’s too early to say, but it is likely to be the usual suspects of banks, broker dealers and market makers.

FN: Who will trade the ETF?

TW: When the time comes, we will consider the benefits of the NYSE, Nasdaq and other exchanges.

FN: Who will prove there is liquidity and there is inventory backing the ETF?

TW: We think that there will be demand for frictionless exposure to Bitcoin and hopefully this demand will translate to authorized participants.

FN: How will you prove that the holdings are secure?

TW: We will provide more information regarding our security system and vaulting in an amendment to our registration statement. We have put substantial time into the issue and have developed new mechanisms for security and storage and have submitted a patent application for them. The onus will fall on us to explain eloquently why the Bitcoin in our trust is secure.

FN: You have 18 pages of risk factors associated with this offering. Are you already addressing investor concerns?

TW: We want to be incredibly transparent and allow people to know exactly what they’re getting into. That means putting the risks of both Bitcoin and the trust structure out there for people to read themselves.

FN: Are you planning to address that ‘lost key’ issue? [There is no password reset mechanism for the Bitcoin network. The risk factors warn that “the loss or destruction of a private key required to access a Bitcoin may be irreversible”.]

TW: The lost key mirrors the idea of losing your wallet in the middle of the night. The security system we’ve developed will address that issue and limit that risk.

FN: Are you worried that the US might legislate against Bitcoin? For example, by declaring that it is illegal for companies to process payments with a known Bitcoin agent?

TW: It doesn’t look like any regulator is trying to outlaw Bitcoin. They are looking to bring healthy and reasonable regulation, which I’m in favor of. Regulation can help bring Bitcoin into the mainstream without taking away the characteristics which attract people to it.

FN: How is Bitcoin Trust different from Exante? [a Bitcoin hedge fund run out of Malta]

TW: The trust is very different from Exante because Exante is a hedge fund and won’t be listed or regulated by the SEC. You can’t invest in Exante through an e-trade account. We want the trust to be the first Bitcoin exchange-traded product available to investors in the public market. Buying a share of the trust should be as easy as buying a share of common stock of any publicly listed company.”

FN: What’s the next project?

TW: We try to identify great entrepreneurs in young companies. Our focus has shifted to entrants in the Bitcoin space, but that doesn’t exclude other sectors. There is still a lot to come in the Bitcoin space, so I wouldn’t be surprised if our next investment or thing had a lot to do with it. Our best way of sourcing deals is through our real-life social network of friends, investors and entrepreneurs.

[coinprize]

My site is betting bitcoins on Nasdaq: http://coinprize.com

[Come-from-Beyond]

Breaking news

Aye. Bitcoin + Trust, sounds breaking... the initial idea of Satoshi.

[Ira H. Fuchs]

Just to clarify a little, this is incorrect. While the original ratio will be 0.2 BTC per share, that will decay over time, and the trust will spend a portion of those Bitcoins. There is nothing sinister or odd about this -- it is, on the contrary, common and entirely expected by investors.

Agreed and I misunderstood although (possibly my reading of) your wording seems to indicate a sinister intent.

their 'company' will then be able to pay them wages/dividends and generally bleed down the value of BTC whilst only they benefit from it. it's a clever piece of latteral thinking, but not a good thing for a technology whose best outcome would be it stabalised into a currency

The company is able to bill the trust for the small management fee (unstated but 0.5% annually is a common amount) and the NAV will decline over time but I wouldn't call it "only they benefit".  If there is no benefit to shareholders (of the trust not the management company) then they won't buy it.  I mean it is an open market.  Investors will weigh the value/utility (if any) of the fund vs the cost (in terms of annual management fee).  They buy because the value outweighs the cost.

I would argue there is a lot of potential utility here:

* A company which had a margin brokerage account could accept BTC for goods and hedge volatility between time of acquiring and time of selling by selling short the fund.
* Speculators looking to go long could use margin to extend their leverage at lower cost and risk compared to systems like bitfinex.
* Long term holders of physical BTC (in cold storage) could sell covered calls against the fund for USD cashflow without needing to periodically sell off BTC on exchanges of unknown risk.
* Buying calls and puts would be a more sophisticated way of trading Bitcoins without dealing with entities of unknown trust.
* Someone looking to borrow BTC but sell them for USD could hedge out the currency risk partially or fully through the use of options.  If nothing else buying way out of the money calls would be a method of capping currency risk.

Our members' abilities to provide direct, access-related services beyond their institutional walls are inevitably limited. However, we can collaborate with other institutions to ensure that no gaps in our access services are left unfilled; we can be sensitive to access restrictions that may be hindering portions of our current or prospective campus populations and can work to overcome those hindrances; and we can support government and private efforts to expand effective access. We are connected to the growing knowledge economy...Ira