Bitcoin Forum
November 16, 2024, 01:44:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [2019-10-10] US SEC Rejects Bitwise Bitcoin ETF Proposal  (Read 266 times)
1Referee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170
Merit: 1427


View Profile
October 17, 2019, 09:33:37 PM
 #21

So many years have passed and by now it is clear that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will never approve an ETF even if it is having a remote connection with any of the cryptocurrencies. Everytime they come up with new excuses.
They don't come up with excuses. All their reasons for rejecting these ETF's are valid considering how big the ETF market in the US is, plus there is a lot of shady shit going on with Tether, overseas exchanges reporting huge amounts of fake volumes, etc.

I'm pretty sure that CME and Bakkt will play a very important role in the approval of an ETF, and then mainly regarding the volumes they generate and the honest price discovery that happens on these platforms. It will not happen any time soon, but I would say that the chances are pretty high that we get it within 5 years from now.

But seriously, who need these ETFs now? I don't think that it is that difficult to store Bitcoins by yourself. You need ETFs for gold, platinum.etc, because it is very risky and expensive to store these assets. The case is different with Bitcoin.
It might not be a difficult task for you to store a few k worth of Bitcoin, but what do you expect an institution or a wealthy individual to do when the amounts are in the multi millions? They rather use a regulated instrument where they don't have to worry about storage, theft, etc.

Crypto as a whole is nowhere near user friendly enough to onboard the mass. An ETF helps a lot in that regard.
BitHodler
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526
Merit: 1179


View Profile
October 20, 2019, 07:06:07 PM
 #22

I'm pretty sure that CME and Bakkt will play a very important role in the approval of an ETF, and then mainly regarding the volumes they generate and the honest price discovery that happens on these platforms. 
CME maybe. Bakkt definitely not. Bakkt has failed and will be reduced to a meme, which it already is to some lower degree. I don't understand why people still try to make it look like a fundamentally important development.

It's better to move on and focus on developments such as taproot+schnorr implementation. It will be a moment to actually celebrate as these are big fundamental developments that add utility to Bitcoin.

Bakkt has done nothing but offer traders a reason to short the news of Bakkt going live. People who did so ended up making a good bit of money, while fundamentalists believing in Bakkt and their impact got nothing at all.

BSV is not the real Bcash. Bcash is the real Bcash.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!