GBTC Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer

[skivrmt]

2888XBT bought yesterday. Total holding at ATH. We should know whether this is a typo or not tomorrow

They removed the 0.5% upfront buying fee. Maybe that's the reason they got some buyers yesterday.

Could very well be it. Very good entry point for whoever took it.

They also stopped withdrawals.  No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.

[JorgeStolfi]

They also stopped withdrawals.  No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.

Whoa. Is that true?  A Roach Motel^TM Fund?

When this thread started, they had a 6-month lock-in period, but after that people were allowed to liquidate (sell the shares back to SMBIT, at the same 0.1 BTC each).

EDIT: back then, clients were forbidden to trade their shares except by liquidating them at SMBIT.  But SMBIT promised ALSO that there would be an open market for their shares, starting Q4/2014.  That market must wait approval by the SEC.  Aren't you confusing "withdrawal" (liquidation) with open market trading?

[njcarlos]

They also stopped withdrawals.  No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.

Neat

[marcus_of_augustus]

They also stopped withdrawals.  No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.

Neat

regulatory captured?

[gotmilk_]

I expect some news in next few days... There is always some inside buying from SM before good news.

[BitAddict]

They also stopped withdrawals.  No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.

Whoa. Is that true?  A Roach Motel^TM Fund?

When this thread started, they had a 6-month lock-in period, but after that people were allowed to liquidate (sell the shares back to SMBIT, at the same 0.1 BTC each).

EDIT: back then, clients were forbidden to trade their shares except by liquidating them at SMBIT.  But SMBIT promised ALSO that there would be an open market for their shares, starting Q4/2014.  That market must wait approval by the SEC.  Aren't you confusing "withdrawal" (liquidation) with open market trading?

I guess he is confusing terms. There is no way clients are not allowed to withdrawal if they want. Would be completely insane for customers, and more if there are any delays.
If that would be true I'm sure Second Market would have warned publicly and gave some time for clients in case they wanted to cashout.

[skivrmt]

They also stopped withdrawals.  No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.

Whoa. Is that true?  A Roach Motel^TM Fund?

When this thread started, they had a 6-month lock-in period, but after that people were allowed to liquidate (sell the shares back to SMBIT, at the same 0.1 BTC each).

EDIT: back then, clients were forbidden to trade their shares except by liquidating them at SMBIT.  But SMBIT promised ALSO that there would be an open market for their shares, starting Q4/2014.  That market must wait approval by the SEC.  Aren't you confusing "withdrawal" (liquidation) with open market trading?

I guess he is confusing terms. There is no way clients are not allowed to withdrawal if they want. Would be completely insane for customers, and more if there are any delays.
If that would be true I'm sure Second Market would have warned publicly and gave some time for clients in case they wanted to cashout.

I am not confusing terms.  I know people in this "fund".  Call or email them if you like.  Per a SEC document they received, customers may not sell BIT until the ETF is approved or disapproved.  Started September 23rd. 

[jl2012]

-2918 XBT yesterday. Seems a mistake, again?

[BitAddict]

They also stopped withdrawals.  No one is allowed to sell until their OTC ETF gets approved by the SEC.

Whoa. Is that true?  A Roach Motel^TM Fund?

When this thread started, they had a 6-month lock-in period, but after that people were allowed to liquidate (sell the shares back to SMBIT, at the same 0.1 BTC each).

EDIT: back then, clients were forbidden to trade their shares except by liquidating them at SMBIT.  But SMBIT promised ALSO that there would be an open market for their shares, starting Q4/2014.  That market must wait approval by the SEC.  Aren't you confusing "withdrawal" (liquidation) with open market trading?

I guess he is confusing terms. There is no way clients are not allowed to withdrawal if they want. Would be completely insane for customers, and more if there are any delays.
If that would be true I'm sure Second Market would have warned publicly and gave some time for clients in case they wanted to cashout.

I am not confusing terms.  I know people in this "fund".  Call or email them if you like.  Per a SEC document they received, customers may not sell BIT until the ETF is approved or disapproved.  Started September 23rd.  

Sorry then. Damn, I guess customers are ok with that, because if bitcoin hits stock market, bitcoin price should skyrocket. But still not being able to cashout until that happen, even if you are holding more than the 6 required months is weird :/

-2918 XBT yesterday. Seems a mistake, again?

 

[wachtwoord]

-2918 XBT yesterday. Seems a mistake, again?

A damn it. Such a shame. Thanks for keeping track of this again!

[skivrmt]

-2918 XBT yesterday. Seems a mistake, again?

Has to be a mistake.  There should be no redemptions since 9/23.

[JorgeStolfi]

I am not confusing terms.  I know people in this "fund".  Call or email them if you like.  Per a SEC document they received, customers may not sell BIT until the ETF is approved or disapproved.  Started September 23rd. 

That is weird.  It makes sense for the SEC to prohibit trading between customers, and the selling of additional shares.  That would be in line with their mission to protect the general investor.  But what reason could make the SEC suspend liquidation?  Isn't that harming the investors?

If the ETF is rejected by the SEC, could they force SMBIT to refund all the customers at their entry price, instead of the current price?

[skivrmt]

I am not confusing terms.  I know people in this "fund".  Call or email them if you like.  Per a SEC document they received, customers may not sell BIT until the ETF is approved or disapproved.  Started September 23rd. 

That is weird.  It makes sense for the SEC to prohibit trading between customers, and the selling of additional shares.  That would be in line with their mission to protect the general investor.  But what reason could make the SEC suspend liquidation?  Isn't that harming the investors?

If the ETF is rejected by the SEC, could they force SMBIT to refund all the customers at their entry price, instead of the current price?

I doubt it since this is forced upon by the SEC, not a choice by SecondMarket.  Part of the risk of being associated with or investing in a fairly non-liquid asset.

[bobabouey2]

I am not confusing terms.  I know people in this "fund".  Call or email them if you like.  Per a SEC document they received, customers may not sell BIT until the ETF is approved or disapproved.  Started September 23rd. 

That is weird.  It makes sense for the SEC to prohibit trading between customers, and the selling of additional shares.  That would be in line with their mission to protect the general investor.  But what reason could make the SEC suspend liquidation?  Isn't that harming the investors?

If the ETF is rejected by the SEC, could they force SMBIT to refund all the customers at their entry price, instead of the current price?

I doubt it since this is forced upon by the SEC, not a choice by SecondMarket.  Part of the risk of being associated with or investing in a fairly non-liquid asset.

This is most likely the application of the Section 5 "Waiting Period" that goes into place once you file a registration statement.  Company can't offer to purchase, or transact in, securities except subject to specific exceptions.

I've never thought of it in the context of a company "buying back" shares, which is essentially what it would be doing if people sold shares.  So it may apply to individuals trying to sell their stake.

However, if this is the reason, then BIT should not be able to sell new stakes either.

I'll ask Barry on Twitter, not that I know him or anything...

[jl2012]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

[oda.krell]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?

[jl2012]

Figures since May 2014 updated with latest actual holding figure

[jl2012]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?

The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal

[oda.krell]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?

The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal

But it's on their side, right?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this: a fund currently sitting on the equivalent of 37M USD is releasing the occasional brochure that contains a typo to the tune of a million or two?

We are in the wild west of finance, aren't we?

[jl2012]

+7716XBT. Mistake again? We will see tomorrow

Thanks for the update.

The +X, followed by -X position changes start to look like a pattern... could you explain what causes those errors? Something in the trust's presentation of the data, or something about your method to calculate their position that leads to it?

The +X is probably just a typo, then the -X is just back to normal

But it's on their side, right?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this: a fund currently sitting on the equivalent of 37M USD is releasing the occasional brochure that contains a typo to the tune of a million or two?

We are in the wild west of finance, aren't we?

I always double check when I see something strange. So it must be their problem