[2019-01-21] - How US Government Shutdown Affects Bitcoin ETF Approval

[asche]

While this is a long short, the Shut down could mean the first SEC approved ETF is going to happen, and with it a slight chance for the market to recover?


However this is still unlikely because the SEC has a and I'm quoting the article here "a skeleton crew" that keeps working during shutdown to avoid missing such deadlines.

But what the hell... fingers crossed

Read more: https://news.bitcoin.com/us-government-shutdown-bitcoin-etf-approval/

[1714706982]

1714706982

[1714706982]

1714706982

[1714706982]

1714706982

[1714706982]

1714706982

[gentlemand]

It's a lot easier to say no than some minion saying yes only for it to be rescinded the moment the heavyweights return. I presume they'll have left instructions while they go and do some bartending to keep the rent man away.

I wonder if the applicants have any legal basis to moan about this. They're effectively not getting the service they've spent a great deal of money pursuing. I'll guess not.

[squatter]

While this is a long short, the Shut down could mean the first SEC approved ETF is going to happen, and with it a slight chance for the market to recover?

However this is still unlikely because the SEC has a and I'm quoting the article here "a skeleton crew" that keeps working during shutdown to avoid missing such deadlines.

But what the hell... fingers crossed

I wouldn't get your hopes up.

They literally only need to type and publish a one-page rejection, with a more in-depth analysis to come later. I'm sure they can manage that with the 5-10% of staff that's still working at the SEC right now.

[asche]

They literally only need to type and publish a one-page rejection, with a more in-depth analysis to come later. I'm sure they can manage that with the 5-10% of staff that's still working at the SEC right now.

I know. But again it depends on how these people feel about the shutdown. I guess you can hardly force them to work without pay. Meaning it comes down to their ideology and beliefs.

Maybe there is a bitcoinist among them

[Lucius]

I think the current situation in USA looks pretty complicated, but also pretty stupid in the same time. All this looks like a big child's play, and ordinary people pay the price. I think that destiny of BTC ETF was decided before, and that deadline is just formality which has to be done so that all statutory and legal acts are fulfilled.

It's hard to expect SEC change their opinion and approve ETF, and I doubt that this is only up to them. It is not in the interest of many rich and big players to give more legitimacy to BTC.

[Betwrong]

I'm wondering what can possibly happen in the case of this scenario:

It isn’t likely to stay in effect for long. Automatic approval isn’t a lifetime guarantee & can be undone easily. When the shutdown ends, the SEC can just force the ETF to be delisted.

Suppose the Vaneck Solidx bitcoin ETF is automatically approved on February 27, and the shutdown continues for one more month. What can be done during this period?

(Although, all of the above is very unlikely because it is already the longest shutdown in US history).

[asche]

Then again USA never had a little angry child for a president yet...
It can last

[gentlemand]

Suppose the Vaneck Solidx bitcoin ETF is automatically approved on February 27, and the shutdown continues for one more month. What can be done during this period?

(Although, all of the above is very unlikely because it is already the longest shutdown in US history).

I well and truly can't believe they'd leave that possibility open before going off on holiday.

And if by some bizarre circumstance it did pass by default, if I were that application team I wouldn't do anything until the adults had come home and confirmed it was allowed to exist. Hundreds of customers pouring in only to be told to go away again a few weeks later would not be a good look.

[btyco]

Don't forget the winklevoss twins who are also likely to launch an application as well. Only one needs to succeed just to get the door open, then the rest will simply copy and paste to get a green light

[squatter]

Suppose the Vaneck Solidx bitcoin ETF is automatically approved on February 27, and the shutdown continues for one more month. What can be done during this period?

(Although, all of the above is very unlikely because it is already the longest shutdown in US history).

If the shutdown continues next month, vital services like Section 8 housing vouchers and food stamps will be cut off. Millions of people will quickly be forced into the eviction process and threatened with homelessness. Any Democrat currently in office who values their political career won't allow that to happen.

The ETF is a complete and utter afterthought when you consider the larger issues. There's no chance in hell it's getting approved just because of the shutdown.

[1Referee]

Don't forget the winklevoss twins who are also likely to launch an application as well. Only one needs to succeed just to get the door open, then the rest will simply copy and paste to get a green light

If a well known entity as VanEck (which is a huge player in the ETF market) can't get the SEC to approve an ETF, every attempt coming from the side of the Voss twins is a wasted effort.

They should stop wasting time on silly ETF's and start paying more attention to what really matters, which is developing applications taking advantage of the Lightning Network, and maybe even use their exchange as liquidity provider, who knows, just do something useful that makes Bitcoin fundamentally better.

This ETF nonsense lasted for way too long now, time to have it come to an end.

[BitHodler]

It's hard to expect SEC change their opinion and approve ETF, and I doubt that this is only up to them. It is not in the interest of many rich and big players to give more legitimacy to BTC.

It goes both way though, because the rich and big players you refer to can also load up on Bitcoin, long it through futures, and enjoy a ride up like they have never seen, assuming the market will go nuts on an ETF approval.

People blame the futures for where we are today, all so that the elite can short the price down. If that was the case, it would make sense to have it go back up and long the price up.

It makes way more sense to have something play out in your advantage multiple times instead of only once. It's funny how people continuously talk about manipulation, yet can't back up any of their claims with facts....

[deisik]

This ETF nonsense lasted for way too long now, time to have it come to an end

As long as someone's making money in the process, it won't stop

From my perspective, it's pretty much the same as with forks. Forking Bitcoin had been a profitable business for quite some time, with Bitcoin Cash being the most conspicuous example of that. Maybe, it is the way to attract private investors, maybe there's something else in this "ETF nonsense" which we don't have a clue about

Regarding the twins, they may fall into this category as well, i.e. they may be not so much interested in Bitcoin as technology as in money they can attract with it. Otherwise, why are they not paying attention to things that actually matter as you suggest? They've been in the business long enough to "do something useful that makes Bitcoin fundamentally better"

[squatter]

People blame the futures for where we are today, all so that the elite can short the price down. If that was the case, it would make sense to have it go back up and long the price up.

Do you mean regulated futures, because they were launched when the market topped? That seems unlikely since they're cash-settled. They can short all they want on the CME market but that doesn't equate to bitcoins being dumped on exchanges. Unlike an open-ended ETF or physically settled contracts, there's no mechanism for cash-settled markets to lead the spot market.

[gentlemand]

Do you mean regulated futures, because they were launched when the market topped? That seems unlikely since they're cash-settled. They can short all they want on the CME market but that doesn't equate to bitcoins being dumped on exchanges. Unlike an open-ended ETF or physically settled contracts, there's no mechanism for cash-settled markets to lead the spot market.

I'll bet most of the spot market action in recent times was purely to provoke action on Bitmex. I can't be arsed to do the sums, but it might well pay to screw with the real market to profit on these cash settled markets. There aren't many people left to put up much of a fight if you make a strong move.

[squatter]

Do you mean regulated futures, because they were launched when the market topped? That seems unlikely since they're cash-settled. They can short all they want on the CME market but that doesn't equate to bitcoins being dumped on exchanges. Unlike an open-ended ETF or physically settled contracts, there's no mechanism for cash-settled markets to lead the spot market.

I'll bet most of the spot market action in recent times was purely to provoke action on Bitmex. I can't be arsed to do the sums, but it might well pay to screw with the real market to profit on these cash settled markets. There aren't many people left to put up much of a fight if you make a strong move.

It seems farfetched to me that large CME accounts would expose themselves to so much counterparty risk at various dodgy spot exchanges just to short the CME more effectively. That's something bitcoiners do on wild west exchanges (including Bitmex), but probably not serious institutional traders. Last I checked, the regulated markets didn't have very high volume to justify that either.

I'm less talking about manipulation in general anyway, and more to the idea that "CME futures launching = Wall Street shorting Bitcoin to the ground." If anything, Bakkt -- especially if it ends up allowing leverage -- would be a much more effective vehicle for that. Between leverage and conventional Wall Street accounting practices, Bakkt could dilute supply and the spot market will follow, if it has high enough volume.