GBTC Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer

[coinableS]

This is probably the only way to invest there clients 401k and IRA retirement money in bitcoin.  I cant just withdraw money out ok my IRA and buy bitcoin.  But i can choose where my money is invested without penalty.  And that way is pre tax.

Yup, exactly this. Using retirement funds to buy bitcoin, you're only option right now is the BIT.

[Cconvert2G36]

Maxim was at $40 yesterday, but for 100 shares like the others. These are the market making brokers. Their job is to provide liquidity for the orders that come in from other traders/customers. They rake their income by implementing a spread. I would wager a portion/all of that block would will turn up as asks from Maxim.

The big question is how fast the premium comes down the minute the first shares hit. And how much the price on other exchanges might react.

There must exist a number of people who want exposure to bitcoin prices, but don't trust themselves to handle the purchase, storage, security, taxes. GBTC doesn't solve the middle two in absolute terms, but it gives someone for the customer to blame (not with direct financial recourse/insurance though of course, lawyerish things).

[Chef Ramsay]

There must exist a number of people who want exposure to bitcoin prices, but don't trust themselves to handle the purchase, storage, security, taxes. GBTC doesn't solve the middle two in absolute terms, but it gives someone for the customer to blame (not with direct financial recourse/insurance though of course, lawyerish things).

And that's what is so foreign to me, not being able to handle the product and then paying a major premium to get shares of it. I mean, it's so easy these days and Coinbase is your ticket to buy, hold and sell for way cheaper. I guess it's great that these folks need this kind of treatment and thus seek out said products.

[Cconvert2G36]

There must exist a number of people who want exposure to bitcoin prices, but don't trust themselves to handle the purchase, storage, security, taxes. GBTC doesn't solve the middle two in absolute terms, but it gives someone for the customer to blame (not with direct financial recourse/insurance though of course, lawyerish things).

And that's what is so foreign to me, not being able to handle the product and then paying a major premium to get shares of it. I mean, it's so easy these days and Coinbase is your ticket to buy, hold and sell for way cheaper. I guess it's great that these folks need this kind of treatment and thus seek out said products.

I doubt they'd frequent a joint like this. 

[JorgeStolfi]

I don't think the SEC would approve a bitcoin etf

I'm almost sure they will as I don't think that heavyweight attorney that specializes in this kind of thing has no influence/colleagues in the SEC nor would she take on a knowingly failed case just for extra money because she has a reputation to upkeep. We're not talking defense attorneys here.

It would be useful to know what percentage of requests for ETFs are denied by the SEC.  Their approval is not a mere formality, and COIN surely is not the only wannabe ETF with heavyweight attorneys.  I gather that it is not a good sign that COIN has been sitting on SEC's desks for ~2 years, and already went through 5 amended re-filings.

Wall Street hedge funds have invested in lots of garbage like mortgage-backed securities, derivatives and other worthless junk so they need something like Bitcoin in their portfolio to provide an upside to their valuations as well as something more to sell to their clients who don't want direct exposure to Bitcoin itself.

I doubt that loading up in bitcoin would improve the image of any investment fund.  Wall Street is not very fond of instruments that lose value every quarter for five consecutive quarters, and whose Captains of Industry cannot even explain why the price is now 220, much less why it should rise again in the future.  "Because Wall Street will buy lots of it" is not a convincing argument to Wall Street, I suspect.

[Cconvert2G36]

I doubt that loading up in bitcoin would improve the image of any investment fund.  Wall Street is not very fond of instruments that lose value every quarter for five consecutive quarters, and whose Captains of Industry cannot even explain why the price is now 220, much less why it should rise again in the future.  "Because Wall Street will buy lots of it" is not a convincing argument to Wall Street, I suspect.

There are firms that specialize in such things. Volatility has always been the enemy of consumer adoption. Liquidity tends to diminish volatility. Adoption has been facing a huge headwind of unwinding a euphoria/willy spike.

The experiment is still (relatively) young and untrusted, but what better way to engender trust than to just keep ticking? For years, in the face of scams, thefts, hacks, the protocol kept working. Lesser ideas would not have stopped around $200 per magic internet token.

[pleaseexplain]

Adoption has been facing a huge headwind of unwinding a euphoria/willy spike.

The experiment is still (relatively) young and untrusted, but what better way to engender trust than to just keep ticking? For years, in the face of scams, thefts, hacks, the protocol kept working. Lesser ideas would not have stopped around $200 per magic internet token.

agree entirely - the system worked fine at 10c per bitcoin and at $1000 per bitcoin and will at any future price. it will take some time for people to accept that without regulated exchanges etc gox like effects/problems will always happen but it is not a 'bitcoin effect/problem".
Same goes with drug dealers using it. Who cares  - many more drug deals are being done every day with fiat than with bitcoin.
The $20 fiat bill in their pocket can be spent on groceries or drugs. Nobody cares either way.

Once more recognisable/traditional systems sit around the transaction process from person A to B, bitcoin will take off.

[fonsie]

It would be useful to know what percentage of requests for ETFs are denied by the SEC.

Why don't you suck on your thumb real hard, I'm sure you can come up with some numbers. Put those numbers on a pretty drawing and go tell people you see no economic sense in the SEC and ETF's. After you are done with that you can go to a candy shop and tell little children everything there is to know about dental hygiene, go to mc donalds with a sign that says it's bad for your health, go to the beach to talk about how bad the sun is for your skin, etc..

I'm sure you can come up with plenty more examples about things that lots of people like doing, except for you the grumpy old man that shouts behind closed doors to people walking on his lawn.

[Bitcoiner2015]

Are there not massive Arbing opportunities for people here who trade 2nd market and normal exchanges? 50% for a quick in and out trade!?

[NUFCrichard]

Updated(!)

Code:

Puma Capital, LLC		   100	38.00
Canaccord Genuity Inc		   100	37.50
Citadel Securities		   100	36.00
KCG Americas LLC		   100	35.55
Maxim Group LLC		   	 50000  35.00                   
Wedbush Securities Inc		   100	31.50
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co             100  25.00
Merriman Curhan Ford & Co	   100	20.00

Wow! So people outbid Maxim, already? Unfortunately 'only' with bids of 100 shares. Still, this is really impressive... I still can't really wrap my head around why they would pay this much of a premium. It can't solely be the convenience of buying using an ETF, can it? I mean, if they really wanted to get their hand on some BTCs, they surely would jump through the hoops of a regular BTC exchange.

They are only trying to buy 100 shares, yes, but the yare bidding quite a lot more than Maxim!
That market looks crazy to me, I haven't seen a market that out of line with the actual price for some time!  Who knew everyone eanted to invest their pensions in Bitcoin

[greenlion]

I don't think the SEC would approve a bitcoin etf

I'm almost sure they will as I don't think that heavyweight attorney that specializes in this kind of thing has no influence/colleagues in the SEC nor would she take on a knowingly failed case just for extra money because she has a reputation to upkeep. We're not talking defense attorneys here.

It would be useful to know what percentage of requests for ETFs are denied by the SEC.  Their approval is not a mere formality, and COIN surely is not the only wannabe ETF with heavyweight attorneys.  I gather that it is not a good sign that COIN has been sitting on SEC's desks for ~2 years, and already went through 5 amended re-filings.

Wall Street hedge funds have invested in lots of garbage like mortgage-backed securities, derivatives and other worthless junk so they need something like Bitcoin in their portfolio to provide an upside to their valuations as well as something more to sell to their clients who don't want direct exposure to Bitcoin itself.

I doubt that loading up in bitcoin would improve the image of any investment fund.  Wall Street is not very fond of instruments that lose value every quarter for five consecutive quarters, and whose Captains of Industry cannot even explain why the price is now 220, much less why it should rise again in the future.  "Because Wall Street will buy lots of it" is not a convincing argument to Wall Street, I suspect.

What other "wannabe ETF"'s have "heavy weight attorneys?

What evidence do you have that "COIN has been sitting on SEC's desks"? I.e. what factual basis do you have to characterize the SEC as just ignoring the filing?

What information/background do you have on the goals and operations of "any investment fund"? Please explain in your own words what an investment fund even does.

What information/background do you have to comment on what kinds of instruments that "Wall Street" might be interested in and why?

What evidence do you have that justifies asserting that nobody in Wall Street has any tools or methodology to begin to analyze bitcoin valuation?

What is the purpose of using the phrase "Captains of industry" other than as a pejorative to advance nothing but innuendo?

What basis do you have to poison the well by insinuating that FOMO is the front-line argument in favor of a possible future bitcoin appreciation?

What is the redeeming value in anything whatsoever in your post when the entire thing is toxic innuendo substantiated by absolutely nothing other than completely baseless conjecture?

[Bagatell]

World's First Bitcoin Exchange Traded Note on Nasdaq Stockholm

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/markets/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201504290300HUGIN___EUPRX____HUG1916185-1

[phoenix1]

Updated(!)

Code:

Puma Capital, LLC		   100	38.00
Canaccord Genuity Inc		   100	37.50
Citadel Securities		   100	36.00
KCG Americas LLC		   100	35.55
Maxim Group LLC		   	 50000  35.00                   
Wedbush Securities Inc		   100	31.50
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co             100  25.00
Merriman Curhan Ford & Co	   100	20.00

Wow! So people outbid Maxim, already? Unfortunately 'only' with bids of 100 shares. Still, this is really impressive... I still can't really wrap my head around why they would pay this much of a premium. It can't solely be the convenience of buying using an ETF, can it? I mean, if they really wanted to get their hand on some BTCs, they surely would jump through the hoops of a regular BTC exchange.

They are only trying to buy 100 shares, yes, but the yare bidding quite a lot more than Maxim!
That market looks crazy to me, I haven't seen a market that out of line with the actual price for some time!  Who knew everyone eanted to invest their pensions in Bitcoin

No, they were not and have not been outbid as the Maxim bid of $35 for 50k was never the highest one. Previously they were bidding $40 for 100 share, now they lowered the bid and increased quantity( possibly hiding behind the higher bids to be quickly removed - we will see )

Look at the free publicity it is getting them already 

Would not be surprised to see one of the silly high bids actually trade 100 shares, just for those bragging rights and the free press.

This change of their bid appears to be the only change in the orderbook in the last 24 hours ...

Updated.

Code:

Maxim Group LLC		   	   100  40.00
Puma Capital, LLC		   100	38.00
Canaccord Genuity Inc		   100	37.50
Citadel Securities		   100	36.00
KCG Americas LLC		   100	35.55                   
Wedbush Securities Inc		   100	31.50
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co             100  25.00
Merriman Curhan Ford & Co	   100	20.00

[JorgeStolfi]

It would be useful to know what percentage of requests for ETFs are denied by the SEC.  Their approval is not a mere formality, and COIN surely is not the only wannabe ETF with heavyweight attorneys.  I gather that it is not a good sign that COIN has been sitting on SEC's desks for ~2 years, and already went through 5 amended re-filings.

I doubt that loading up in bitcoin would improve the image of any investment fund.  Wall Street is not very fond of instruments that lose value every quarter for five consecutive quarters, and whose Captains of Industry cannot even explain why the price is now 220, much less why it should rise again in the future.  "Because Wall Street will buy lots of it" is not a convincing argument to Wall Street, I suspect.

What What What What What evidence do you have What What

Like, for example, actually reading the 5th amended COIN filing?

What is the purpose of using the phrase "Captains of industry" other than as a pejorative to advance nothing but innuendo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzmzQja7a2M

[jl2012]

It would be useful to know what percentage of requests for ETFs are denied by the SEC.  Their approval is not a mere formality, and COIN surely is not the only wannabe ETF with heavyweight attorneys.  I gather that it is not a good sign that COIN has been sitting on SEC's desks for ~2 years, and already went through 5 amended re-filings.

I doubt that loading up in bitcoin would improve the image of any investment fund.  Wall Street is not very fond of instruments that lose value every quarter for five consecutive quarters, and whose Captains of Industry cannot even explain why the price is now 220, much less why it should rise again in the future.  "Because Wall Street will buy lots of it" is not a convincing argument to Wall Street, I suspect.

What What What What What evidence do you have What What

Like, for example, actually reading the 5th amended COIN filing?

What is the purpose of using the phrase "Captains of industry" other than as a pejorative to advance nothing but innuendo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzmzQja7a2M

Stop spreading unfounded FUD.

You can see the early history of the GLD ETF here:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001222333&type=&dateb=20050101&owner=include&count=100

The application was submitted on 2003-05-13, after 5 amendments, it was approved on 2004-11-17.

I'm not sure if COIN will be approved, but for something as innovative as bitcoin, I don't think it is significantly slower than GLD.

[JorgeStolfi]

Stop spreading unfounded FUD.

You can see the early history of the GLD ETF here:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001222333&type=&dateb=20050101&owner=include&count=100

The application was submitted on 2003-05-13, after 5 amendments, it was approved on 2004-11-17.

I'm not sure if COIN will be approved, but for something as innovative as bitcoin, I don't think it is significantly slower than GLD.

Why is doubting the approval and asking for data on SEC performance "spreading FUD"? 

I am not sure COIN will be approved either.  It has certainly the same problem as GLD, namely being based on an asset whose price is almost entirely speculative, not grounded on concrete fundamentals.

Actually, gold does have some fundamentals, only that they account for only a small fraction of the current market price.  And GLD (like gold) lost 1/3 of its value after it was approved by the SEC.  Would that fact influence SEC's decision about COIN?

[Alley]

Looks like maxims bid is back to 100 shares.  Maybe they got some bad info that asks were going to be up yesterday?

[ensurance982]

Stop spreading unfounded FUD.

You can see the early history of the GLD ETF here:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001222333&type=&dateb=20050101&owner=include&count=100

The application was submitted on 2003-05-13, after 5 amendments, it was approved on 2004-11-17.

I'm not sure if COIN will be approved, but for something as innovative as bitcoin, I don't think it is significantly slower than GLD.

Why is doubting the approval and asking for data on SEC performance "spreading FUD"? 

I am not sure COIN will be approved either.  It has certainly the same problem as GLD, namely being based on an asset whose price is almost entirely speculative, not grounded on concrete fundamentals.

Actually, gold does have some fundamentals, only that they account for only a small fraction of the current market price.  And GLD (like gold) lost 1/3 of its value after it was approved by the SEC.  Would that fact influence SEC's decision about COIN?

Well, you said it yourself - the intrinsic value of Gold is much lower than its market value - therefore its price is also mostly based on speculation (as per definition!). Losing 1/3 of its price doesn't really make all funds based on similar assets as failure, as well, does it?

[HeliKopterBen]

And GLD (like gold) lost 1/3 of its value after it was approved by the SEC.  Would that fact influence SEC's decision about COIN?

You have eaten too many FUD sandwiches.  GLD gained over 400% after approval and trading began, and this is after gold had already traded for centuries.

[JorgeStolfi]

Well, you said it yourself - the intrinsic value of Gold is much lower than its market value - therefore its price is also mostly based on speculation (as per definition!). Losing 1/3 of its price doesn't really make all funds based on similar assets as failure, as well, does it?

It makes investing in such assets a gamble with unknown and unknowable odds and prizes.  Gold at least has a hard price floor, based on its industrial and decorative uses.  Bitcoin doesn't.

I understand that the SEC will not block risky instruments, as long as the potential investors are clearly informed about the risks.  The question is, can one really do that with bitcoin, without scaring the investors away?

I think that it is totally immoral, if not worse, to try to sell bitcoin -- whether bare or wrapped in fund shares -- to people who do not have the necessary knowledge to really understand the risks, and may be taken in by the glowing predictions of Anotonopoulos, the Winkles, and other "bitcoin evangelists".  But, unfortunately, the expected market for those funds is precisely that kind of investor...