SEC delays decision on ETF again, Vaneck, SolidX withdraw proposal

[btc_angela]

These SEC nabs are just going to keep delaying the decision until they themselves have accumulated enough bitcoin and their crony buddies too. After that they will simply give the green signal and watch their investments fly

Haha, nice conspiracy, but I don't know man. It really looks like they hated crypto so I don't think that they will invest on bitcoin before they finally given the go signal to accept the proposal. But then again, I'm no longer 'hype' about the decision though, they kept on delaying on so we might as well call it a day with them and expect no approval.

[bitbunnny]

So many conspiracy theories about SEC and to be honest I don't like that. People expected too much from ETF thinking that will rise the price and solve some issues.
Personally I don't think that ETF would have some significant positive influence and having in mind all this situation around it I stopped counting on it long time ago, don't bothering anymore. Bitcoin can make further progress even without it.

[Distinctin]

So many conspiracy theories about SEC and to be honest I don't like that. People expected too much from ETF thinking that will rise the price and solve some issues.
Personally I don't think that ETF would have some significant positive influence and having in mind all this situation around it I stopped counting on it long time ago, don't bothering anymore.

If the approval will come, good for crypto but if not, that would not change the potential of crypto.

Approval is a better news, it will help the price a bit as this makes people think approval will drive big investors in the market, but the question is how long we shall wait... right thing to do now, is just accept whatever happens, crypto will not end without ETF.

Bitcoin can make further progress even without it.

But that progress would not be as big if with ETF approved, imagine the money flowing from big investors, it will certainly create demand in the market.

[Wind_FURY]

So many conspiracy theories about SEC and to be honest I don't like that. People expected too much from ETF thinking that will rise the price and solve some issues.
Personally I don't think that ETF would have some significant positive influence and having in mind all this situation around it I stopped counting on it long time ago, don't bothering anymore. Bitcoin can make further progress even without it.

I personally think that you're wrong.



While the plebs are talking/arguing, the whalecumulators are buying as much of the supply they can, and put every one of them under their custody.

[Lucius]

The one thing around which the majority agrees is that BTC ETF will cause significant price increase, and some very often referred to gold as an example. But for me personally this is not a good example, gold is something completely different, and the only thing gold and BTC have in common is that they can both be store of value.

However recently I read what theymos is write about ETF, and I realized that few people actually wonder what will be a long lasting consequence of ETF. But perhaps it's best to read what our admin thinks about all this and some other important things.

Andreas Antonopolous: ETF's are NOT good for bitcoin as the centralized custodian can decide what to do with the bitcoin they're holding.

Agreed, an ETF will almost certainly turn into a disaster at some point. The coins will be stolen, forks will be handled controversially, there will be issues with fungibility (eg. someone will "trace stolen coins" to the ETF's stash), the world will freak out when a bunch of retirees lose their life savings after doing the equivalent of buying BTC at $20k, etc. etc. It'll also get the sort of people who love regulation more into BTC, which is never good.

But investors want it, so it'll probably happen eventually. In particular, I totally condemn trying to get regulators to interfere in the free market more than they already do by blocking any ETF. (When the SEC was last looking into this, I had actually written a long document that I was going to send to them in order to comment on many technical issues with their proposed Bitcoin ETF regulation, but I decided not to send it because I don't want to have even the slightest hand in regulations.)

An ETF probably will increase the price a lot (until the ETF suffers its near-inevitable catastrophe), which has some pros and cons.

Note that an ETF can't affect Bitcoin itself, just the ETF investors and the market. There is no voting of any sort in Bitcoin, so it's not as if holding a lot of BTC gives you any power over Bitcoin, for example. I do agree with Andreas that the creation of a "corpo-Bitcoin" seems probable, perhaps after the ETF loses a ton of BTC and wants to undo it.

Thanks to bitmover who post this and some other good post from theymos reddit account : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153962.0

[Kemarit]

So many conspiracy theories about SEC and to be honest I don't like that. People expected too much from ETF thinking that will rise the price and solve some issues.
Personally I don't think that ETF would have some significant positive influence and having in mind all this situation around it I stopped counting on it long time ago, don't bothering anymore. Bitcoin can make further progress even without it.

Yes, so much about those conspiracy theories about the non-approval. Well the expectations has pass already, I mean when we heard all about it the first time, our eyes grow bigger and everyone was excited because we compare it the Gold ETF's. However, the excitement turns into nightmare for majority of us and now no one wanted to have a ETF's. Short term yes, it has the potential to bring in more investors specially coming from Wall Street. But as seen in Gold, the hype also died down after the ETF and it took year before it finally have some semblace of a rally. We don't want that to happen to Bitcoin in the long run.

[bitmover]

However recently I read what theymos is write about ETF, and I realized that few people actually wonder what will be a long lasting consequence of ETF.

ETF will make Bitcoin available to traditional investors. ETF is a fund, which is owned by an institutional investor, and will be "backed up" by real bitcoins.

This may lead to a fractional banking of bitcoin reserves of that fund.  Which, in the long run, may cause a serious crisis, and a pseudo bitcoin inflation.

However those consequences do not really impact those who didn´t invest in the ETF, but actually own the BTC. By owing the bitcoin I am owing their private keys. We can protect ourselves from this, and even be benefited by this banking and financial mess.

[Wind_FURY]

The one thing around which the majority agrees is that BTC ETF will cause significant price increase, and some very often referred to gold as an example. But for me personally this is not a good example, gold is something completely different, and the only thing gold and BTC have in common is that they can both be store of value.

However recently I read what theymos is write about ETF, and I realized that few people actually wonder what will be a long lasting consequence of ETF. But perhaps it's best to read what our admin thinks about all this and some other important things.

Andreas Antonopolous: ETF's are NOT good for bitcoin as the centralized custodian can decide what to do with the bitcoin they're holding.

Agreed, an ETF will almost certainly turn into a disaster at some point. The coins will be stolen, forks will be handled controversially, there will be issues with fungibility (eg. someone will "trace stolen coins" to the ETF's stash), the world will freak out when a bunch of retirees lose their life savings after doing the equivalent of buying BTC at $20k, etc. etc. It'll also get the sort of people who love regulation more into BTC, which is never good.

But investors want it, so it'll probably happen eventually. In particular, I totally condemn trying to get regulators to interfere in the free market more than they already do by blocking any ETF. (When the SEC was last looking into this, I had actually written a long document that I was going to send to them in order to comment on many technical issues with their proposed Bitcoin ETF regulation, but I decided not to send it because I don't want to have even the slightest hand in regulations.)

An ETF probably will increase the price a lot (until the ETF suffers its near-inevitable catastrophe), which has some pros and cons.

Note that an ETF can't affect Bitcoin itself, just the ETF investors and the market. There is no voting of any sort in Bitcoin, so it's not as if holding a lot of BTC gives you any power over Bitcoin, for example. I do agree with Andreas that the creation of a "corpo-Bitcoin" seems probable, perhaps after the ETF loses a ton of BTC and wants to undo it.

Plus with enough Bitcoin supply under custodian control, they can censor transactions, disallow transactions, and freeze users' coins. I believe we can then say that Bitcoin has failed.

[Pursuer]

Plus with enough Bitcoin supply under custodian control, they can censor transactions, disallow transactions, and freeze users' coins. I believe we can then say that Bitcoin has failed.

that could only work if bitcoin was a proof of stake shitcoin that was designed to give you power when you own a big "stake" in the coin (hold a large number of that coin in your wallet) or running a full node was impossible (like how it is with ethereum). but bitcoin is proof of work and you currently need to invest billions to have enough hashrate to start making a difference and "disallow" transactions and that is only if other miners stop mining!

[Lucius]

ETF will make Bitcoin available to traditional investors. ETF is a fund, which is owned by an institutional investor, and will be "backed up" by real bitcoins.

It will be "backed by real bitcoins" only in case it is about physically-backed bitcoin ETF, and to my knowledge only VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust offered such solution, all others are just futures-backed bitcoin ETFs. Discussions exist which option is better, but the majority seems to be supporting more futures-backed ETF, just because of security which can be a big problem in case of physically-backed ETF.

I agree that small players can profit from game that will be played in ETFs by big institutional players, so now we have no choice but to wait and see what SEC will say about this in the years to come.

[pereira4]

The one thing around which the majority agrees is that BTC ETF will cause significant price increase, and some very often referred to gold as an example. But for me personally this is not a good example, gold is something completely different, and the only thing gold and BTC have in common is that they can both be store of value.

However recently I read what theymos is write about ETF, and I realized that few people actually wonder what will be a long lasting consequence of ETF. But perhaps it's best to read what our admin thinks about all this and some other important things.

Andreas Antonopolous: ETF's are NOT good for bitcoin as the centralized custodian can decide what to do with the bitcoin they're holding.

Agreed, an ETF will almost certainly turn into a disaster at some point. The coins will be stolen, forks will be handled controversially, there will be issues with fungibility (eg. someone will "trace stolen coins" to the ETF's stash), the world will freak out when a bunch of retirees lose their life savings after doing the equivalent of buying BTC at $20k, etc. etc. It'll also get the sort of people who love regulation more into BTC, which is never good.

But investors want it, so it'll probably happen eventually. In particular, I totally condemn trying to get regulators to interfere in the free market more than they already do by blocking any ETF. (When the SEC was last looking into this, I had actually written a long document that I was going to send to them in order to comment on many technical issues with their proposed Bitcoin ETF regulation, but I decided not to send it because I don't want to have even the slightest hand in regulations.)

An ETF probably will increase the price a lot (until the ETF suffers its near-inevitable catastrophe), which has some pros and cons.

Note that an ETF can't affect Bitcoin itself, just the ETF investors and the market. There is no voting of any sort in Bitcoin, so it's not as if holding a lot of BTC gives you any power over Bitcoin, for example. I do agree with Andreas that the creation of a "corpo-Bitcoin" seems probable, perhaps after the ETF loses a ton of BTC and wants to undo it.

Thanks to bitmover who post this and some other good post from theymos reddit account : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153962.0

There's nothing new that we haven't seen before in previous Goxings, in relation to what theymos said. Noobs gonna noob, they will lose coins. What can one do? There's just going to be more coins in the prize pot, a bigger ETF sized booty. The price will go up extremely high and a correction will eventually happen when ETFgox happens, and then so the new cycle towards a new ATH begins because ETF doesn't raise the total supply. BTFD.

[1Referee]

Plus with enough Bitcoin supply under custodian control, they can censor transactions, disallow transactions, and freeze users' coins. I believe we can then say that Bitcoin has failed.

How has Bitcoin exactly failed in this case? If a custodian has so much user funds under control, and it starts censoring transactions, then people themselves have failed because they didn't understand that you don't own any coins when you don't own the private keys. It's super simple.

Xapo has billions in client funds locked up. The clients will have to beg Xapo to release the funds but may be presented with a no or some other lame excuse. Did Bitcoin fail? Nope. You can't blame Bitcoin for people's own stupidity. You always have the option to say no to a custodian, but if you decide to use them anyway, then you will have to face the potential consequences of that.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus with enough Bitcoin supply under custodian control, they can censor transactions, disallow transactions, and freeze users' coins. I believe we can then say that Bitcoin has failed.

that could only work if bitcoin was a proof of stake shitcoin that was designed to give you power when you own a big "stake" in the coin (hold a large number of that coin in your wallet) or running a full node was impossible (like how it is with ethereum). but bitcoin is proof of work and you currently need to invest billions to have enough hashrate to start making a difference and "disallow" transactions and that is only if other miners stop mining!

No, imagine if Coinbase, Blockchain.info, Xapo, and exchanges already have more than 50% of Bitcoin in circulation under their custody. If they band together, and start censoring transactions, then Bitcoin as a permissionless, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency would start to fail.

[bbc.reporter]

Another delay. I reckon everyone does not care anymore and knows that bitcoin can Tom Lee itself to $25k without an ETF hehehe.

In any case, mark the dates mentioned in the article and expect another delay.



The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) delayed making a decision on three bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) proposals Monday.

The ETFs, proposed earlier this year by asset managers Bitwise Asset Management, VanEck/SolidX and Wilshire Phoenix, and filed with exchanges NYSE Arca and Cboe BZX, are all seeking to become the first such investment vehicle based on bitcoin.

The filings were published in the Federal Register in February and June, kicking off the legally-mandated 240-day clock on a final decision.

Final decisions on the Bitwise and VanEck/SolidX proposals are expected by Oct. 13 and Oct. 18, respectively.

The next decision on the Wilshire Phoenix proposal is scheduled to occur by Sept. 29.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/sec-delays-decisions-on-3-bitcoin-etf-proposals-until-autumn

[pooya87]

In any case, mark the dates mentioned in the article and expect another delay.

why does SEC even bother dedicating any time for these proposals anyways. they are going to reject all of them in the end, they have been doing it for a couple of years now without any exceptions. they just waste the time of their staff, these companies submitting ETFs and everyone else's time!

[Jating]

why does SEC even bother dedicating any time for these proposals anyways. they are going to reject all of them in the end, they have been doing it for a couple of years now without any exceptions. they just waste the time of their staff, these companies submitting ETFs and everyone else's time!

The so called 'we are doing our job" paradigm. But we all know that they are not going to approved any ETF for that matter and just giving everyone some sense of false hope here. I'm only in the majority here that no matter what, approval will not come so we better accept that fact.

I'm not surprised by delay, on the contrary the hype has died down so personally I'm not bothered by this news. We need to move on and not just wait for this so called approval, we have seen bitcoin making a good run without this news so we are all good by now.

Correct, there is no hype already, people who touted that this could bring a positive effect on the market doesn't think it that way anymore as the price breaks the five digit barrier and we could reach all time high soon without this so called ETF's.

[stadus]

It seems like people are not paying attention to this anymore as I am not seeing an effect on the market, in the past, this news should have an effect but now it's just an ordinary one and people already understands that SEC could delay it again.

Maybe if they'll start approving some application we might see some good results to the market but I already like how people think now as they are not consider a delay of disapproval of SEC decision a FUD factor.

[Lucius]

why does SEC even bother dedicating any time for these proposals anyways. they are going to reject all of them in the end, they have been doing it for a couple of years now without any exceptions. they just waste the time of their staff, these companies submitting ETFs and everyone else's time!

Why do you think they dedicating any time on any crypto related ETF? It's just a formality for them, and such proposals were rejected at the very moment of their submission. 240 days for something that can be done in 24 days is just ridiculous, proposal is same in Day 1 and in Day 240.

I would not agree that companies who submitting ETFs to SEC wasting their time, they need to make constant pressure on SEC to show that there is a lot of interest in something like Bitcoin ETF. Most experts say that we should see first crypto ETF in few years, so it can be 1 or 5 years from now.

[ene1980]

Another delay. I reckon everyone does not care anymore and knows that bitcoin can Tom Lee itself to $25k without an ETF hehehe.
In any case, mark the dates mentioned in the article and expect another delay.

There was a time when the market would become active when the hearing date was nearing but now no one really cares whether they accept ETF or not as the SEC is dragging this for a very long time and everyone will loose interest if that happens and that is what we are seeing here, the final decision on the Bitwise is expected by October 13 and SolidX is expected by October 18.

[Juggy777]

Another delay. I reckon everyone does not care anymore and knows that bitcoin can Tom Lee itself to $25k without an ETF hehehe.

In any case, mark the dates mentioned in the article and expect another delay.



The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) delayed making a decision on three bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) proposals Monday.

The ETFs, proposed earlier this year by asset managers Bitwise Asset Management, VanEck/SolidX and Wilshire Phoenix, and filed with exchanges NYSE Arca and Cboe BZX, are all seeking to become the first such investment vehicle based on bitcoin.

The filings were published in the Federal Register in February and June, kicking off the legally-mandated 240-day clock on a final decision.

Final decisions on the Bitwise and VanEck/SolidX proposals are expected by Oct. 13 and Oct. 18, respectively.

The next decision on the Wilshire Phoenix proposal is scheduled to occur by Sept. 29.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/sec-delays-decisions-on-3-bitcoin-etf-proposals-until-autumn

@bbc.reporter I could not help but notice you’re smitten by Tom Lee lol, but coming to Sec I had forgotten about their decision as each time there’s either a delay or a rejection. Another set of dates and again Sec will delay the application why doesn’t it simply puts up a notice, stating they’ll not be approving Bitcoin ETFs kindly do not submit any applications regarding it. I don’t expect the market to be effected by this decision, but what do you’ll think will prices remain neutral or will it tank?.