[2018-08-20] SEC Faces Thursday Deadline for ProShares Bitcoin ETF Decision

[BitcoinArsenal]

Less than a month after delaying a decision on a bitcoin-based exchange-traded fund (ETF), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is poised to approve or disapprove another pair of proposed ETFs.
Full article on Coindesk

[1714125903]

1714125903

[1714125903]

1714125903

[1714125903]

1714125903

[1714125903]

1714125903

[1714125903]

1714125903

[1Referee]

Seriously, if the SEC isn't in the mood to approve the VanEck ETF (which by far is the most solid proposal), others stand no chance at all.

It's time to say goodbye to the ETF speculation and focus on other things. We'll definitely get an ETF at some point, but not in the coming few years, that's clear. It seems that the SEC for now just can't handle the fact that the majority of the trading volumes, and directly the main source of demand, is coming from Asian exchanges not being complient with US laws.

We need the market to calm down and let it bottom out properly, because there clearly is still way too much bull run speculation.

[squatter]

Seriously, if the SEC isn't in the mood to approve the VanEck ETF (which by far is the most solid proposal), others stand no chance at all.

It's time to say goodbye to the ETF speculation and focus on other things. We'll definitely get an ETF at some point, but not in the coming few years, that's clear. It seems that the SEC for now just can't handle the fact that the majority of the trading volumes, and directly the main source of demand, is coming from Asian exchanges not being complient with US laws.

That's my take as well. None of the applications up for review will be approved based on their objections from last month. If the SEC thinks there's insufficient oversight of the underlying market and that it's prone to manipulation, no amount of restructuring the proposed ETFs is going to matter. It's simply not going to happen.

Constantly hearing about these DOA applications is getting old.

[gentlemand]

Constantly hearing about these DOA applications is getting old.

It's the new 'China/Korea ban' doncha know. Perfect for a quick crash as people are too fucking stupid to read beyond the first word of a headline. Look at the final Winklevoss rejection. By that point it was the essence of walking dead yet it still managed to have an effect.

I get the feeling that ETFs will be usurped by other workarounds like that Bakkt thing for example long before any ETF is approved, which is more likely to be never.

[tjweb]

The FUD is strong. The WallStreet whales are buying. Bullish signal.

[Kemarit]

The FUD is strong. The WallStreet whales are buying. Bullish signal.

What the hell are you talking about? Where's the bullish signal?


Spot on @squatter and @1Referee, the market will not be resistant to any manipulation and transparency in regulation is not also present, so guess what? We may never get a chance to see any Bitcoin ETF approval, not by a long shot.

The only difference with Van Eck proposal is he "insurance component", to protect investors from the risk involved, but I don't think it is enough for SEC to approved their proposal as well.

[bbc.reporter]

Seriously, if the SEC isn't in the mood to approve the VanEck ETF (which by far is the most solid proposal), others stand no chance at all.

It's time to say goodbye to the ETF speculation and focus on other things. We'll definitely get an ETF at some point, but not in the coming few years, that's clear. It seems that the SEC for now just can't handle the fact that the majority of the trading volumes, and directly the main source of demand, is coming from Asian exchanges not being complient with US laws.

We need the market to calm down and let it bottom out properly, because there clearly is still way too much bull run speculation.

Agreed. It will be another disappointment to those people who want the ETF approved. But the absence of market movement on the issue might also show that no one cares anymore on what the SEC decision is on Thursday.

[aso118]

Seriously, if the SEC isn't in the mood to approve the VanEck ETF (which by far is the most solid proposal), others stand no chance at all.

It's time to say goodbye to the ETF speculation and focus on other things. We'll definitely get an ETF at some point, but not in the coming few years, that's clear. It seems that the SEC for now just can't handle the fact that the majority of the trading volumes, and directly the main source of demand, is coming from Asian exchanges not being complient with US laws.

We need the market to calm down and let it bottom out properly, because there clearly is still way too much bull run speculation.

Yes, the expected decision would be for the SEC to reject it. The SEC could do well to issue some guidelines on what ETFs are a strict no in its current views, and then revise those guidelines periodically. It would make sense for the SEC to announce that they are not going to accept crypto ETFs, rather than reject them one at a time.

[Kakmakr]

The Winklevoss rejection should be the guideline of how this VanEck ETF will be handled by the SEC. There is nothing in this application that would persuade the committee to make a different ruling and if I can be blunt, I do not think they would want to risk their reputation on the "insurance component" of this proposal. 

I am also of the opinion that their real reason for the denial of all Bitcoin ETFs are not in their hand, their real mandate is to think of some excuses not to approve these ETFs. 

[prehisto]

It would make sense for the SEC to announce that they are not going to accept crypto ETFs, rather than reject them one at a time.

This would be so much better than market overreacting on every damn rejection. I personally believe that there is no way that ETF wil be approved any time soon.

The only scenario where it happens is when market has calmed down, the speculators are gone. I believe that in last 24 hours we saw exactly why they will not approve the ETF, the recent pump was a market manipulation.

[1Referee]

But the absence of market movement on the issue might also show that no one cares anymore on what the SEC decision is on Thursday.

That applied to the Winklevoss ETF as well, and the market still went down afterwards. I'm fairly confident that market movers will tank the price down after the SEC either rejecting it directly or postpones its decision. I opened a small short position slightly below $6700 just to put my money where my mouth is. We'll see tomorrow if it was a good or bad decision.

It would make sense for the SEC to announce that they are not going to accept crypto ETFs, rather than reject them one at a time.

That would be a perfect measure I would instantly support, and it would help the market bottom out, but they won't do it for the obvious reason that it would make them look like they're anti crypto, which they don't want to be known as. As far as I'm aware of, they have never done anything like that, and they probably just shouldn't.

[BitHodler]

As far as I'm aware of, they have never done anything like that, and they probably just shouldn't.

Correct. The only thing we can somewhat blame them for is that they unnecessarily extend their decision deadlines, while it's near 100% certain already that postponing ETF deadlines means that it's not going to happen.

Maybe it's time for everyone trying to have an ETF listed to just admit that they won't succeed with how clear the SEC has been when it comes to all the rejected ETFs. It's an utter waste of time and money.

It seems that the small number of realistic people here have more sense in them than all those desperate corporate entities trying to bank on a potential approval. Only fools don't know when to stop trying.

[darkangel11]

The Winklevoss rejection should be the guideline of how this VanEck ETF will be handled by the SEC. There is nothing in this application that would persuade the committee to make a different ruling and if I can be blunt, I do not think they would want to risk their reputation on the "insurance component" of this proposal.  

I am also of the opinion that their real reason for the denial of all Bitcoin ETFs are not in their hand, their real mandate is to think of some excuses not to approve these ETFs.  

Wrong. Winklevoss ETF was not backed. It was supposed to be a derivative of a derivative. That's a first major red flag. Also, it was supposed to be based on the value on Gemini exchange, which was a second red flag. Te exchange is rather small and could be easily manipulated. The ETF being owned by the people running the exchange on which it depends on is a big no no.

Vaneck Solidx ETF is going to be backed by real BTC that will be held by the company. It will also trade on CBOE, which is huge compared to Gemini and CBOE is actually pushing the SEC to approve this.
It can of course get rejected, but it's a completely different from all the previously rejected ETFs.

[bbc.reporter]

The Winklevoss rejection should be the guideline of how this VanEck ETF will be handled by the SEC. There is nothing in this application that would persuade the committee to make a different ruling and if I can be blunt, I do not think they would want to risk their reputation on the "insurance component" of this proposal.  

I am also of the opinion that their real reason for the denial of all Bitcoin ETFs are not in their hand, their real mandate is to think of some excuses not to approve these ETFs.  

Wrong. Winklevoss ETF was not backed. It was supposed to be a derivative of a derivative. That's a first major red flag. Also, it was supposed to be based on the value on Gemini exchange, which was a second red flag. Te exchange is rather small and could be easily manipulated. The ETF being owned by the people running the exchange on which it depends on is a big no no.

Can you give us the source of that information? I have always assumed that all ETFs that were and are trying for approval are backed by real bitcoins.

[gentlemand]

Can you give us the source of that information? I have always assumed that all ETFs that were and are trying for approval are backed by real bitcoins.

There's one of them - https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysearca/2018/34-83912.pdf

Two of the ones today were futures based, not sure about the third.

I would guess because the actual futures markets are properly regulated they thought they were in with more a shot. Can't do anything about the shite underlying them though.

[bbc.reporter]

@gentlemand. Hehehe then I reckon those shite ETFs that are based on bitcoin futures are worse than the ICO scams that have widely caused losses among retail investors in the cryptospace.

In any case, good luck to its victims.