Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask!

[fillippone]

Breaking news:

GRAYSCALE BITCOIN TRUST (BTC): BARRY E. SILBERT AND MARK MURPHY NOTIFIED OF THEIR RESIGNATION FROM BOARD OF GRAYSCALE INVESTMENTS - SEC FILING - RTRS


Still unclear the reason.
Not a good sign for me.

[1714209936]

1714209936

[1714209936]

1714209936

[DooMAD]

Breaking news:

GRAYSCALE BITCOIN TRUST (BTC): BARRY E. SILBERT AND MARK MURPHY NOTIFIED OF THEIR RESIGNATION FROM BOARD OF GRAYSCALE INVESTMENTS - SEC FILING - RTRS


Still unclear the reason.
Not a good sign for me.

If I had to guess, it's probably related to some residual fallout from Genesis.  Any ties to either the Genesis bankruptcy or the 'Gemini Earn' thing and the SEC's subsequent intervention probably look bad for the application.

[franky1]

comparing grayscale to blackrock.
grayscale lacks proper ETF experience and fund management experience

Murthys work history is in public relations, communications and litigation
silberts history is in private investments (business internal shares of private companies/venture capital)

they both do not have experience of managing funds of a publicly traded investment vehicle

so even if grayscale never done a ETF before, unlike blackrock..  the only chance to show grayscale can be capable of running one is to have a team that ran one before from other ventures in their work history

grayscale was missing a few key bits of confidence of running the ETF in SEC eyes so this management reshuffle is a positive
some may think silbert is falling on his own sword, resigning from the business he founded.. but im sure he is well compensated and will continue to earn more even if he isnt barking orders any longer from a direct position within grayscale.

also barry silbert is still the DCG president so still gets to puppet master grayscale from a different level, though it would on-paper appear as grayscale distancing itself from the legal troubles of DCG's 2022-23 legal woes

the replacements did work for DCG previous to this month so its not like they're strangers to DCG manifesto/corporate strategy. but they do appear to have better work history that can aid grayscales confidence more then the previous

[bbc.reporter]

Breaking news:

GRAYSCALE BITCOIN TRUST (BTC): BARRY E. SILBERT AND MARK MURPHY NOTIFIED OF THEIR RESIGNATION FROM BOARD OF GRAYSCALE INVESTMENTS - SEC FILING - RTRS


Still unclear the reason.
Not a good sign for me.

It appears someone is trying to terminate the hustlers and the clowns in the cryptospace before uncle Gary agrees on an approval on a spot ETF for bitcoin. I reckon Justin Sun might be the next person to be terminated. This terminator might be the Lex Luthor of the cryptospace and he is doing this with the help of his backer. The backer might be Larry Fink.

[hd49728]

Coinglass has two live charts for Grayscale holdings and Grayscale Premium

https://www.coinglass.com/pro/gray/Grayscale
https://www.coinglass.com/pro/gray/GrayscalePremium

It seems Coinglass is more regular updated their chart and figures for Grayscale Bitcoin Trust than two following websites.
https://bitcointreasuries.net/
https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/treasuries/

[zasad@]

Breaking news:

GRAYSCALE BITCOIN TRUST (BTC): BARRY E. SILBERT AND MARK MURPHY NOTIFIED OF THEIR RESIGNATION FROM BOARD OF GRAYSCALE INVESTMENTS - SEC FILING - RTRS


Still unclear the reason.
Not a good sign for me.

I think that all these events are happening due to the acceleration of approval of the spot BTC-ETF. GBTC also has an application with the SEC, and perhaps during the negotiations some people had to leave the company to speed up the process. But these are just my thoughts.

[franky1]

grayscale said this

a Grayscale spokeswoman said. "Aligned with Grayscale’s commitment to responsible growth, we are pleased to welcome Mark Shifke, Matt Kummell and Edward McGee to Grayscale’s board of directors, Grayscale and our investors will benefit from their respective experiences in the financial services and asset management industries as we prepare for Grayscale’s next chapter."

so yep SEC did not have confidence in the old management teams lack of experience in fund management of an ETF

[fillippone]

grayscale said this

a Grayscale spokeswoman said. "Aligned with Grayscale’s commitment to responsible growth, we are pleased to welcome Mark Shifke, Matt Kummell and Edward McGee to Grayscale’s board of directors, Grayscale and our investors will benefit from their respective experiences in the financial services and asset management industries as we prepare for Grayscale’s next chapter."

so yep SEC did not have confidence in the old management teams lack of experience in fund management of an ETF

I find this quite amusing, as the SEC is now telegraphing each move to every ETF applicant right now. Being overzealous toward the ETF sponsors maybe means less cautious when approving, letting the all the bunch of issuers fight to get the bigger share of the market.
SEC is now terrified to be accused of picking a winner (or a loser, fwiw) that is now worried about everyone doing theri homework and having the ETF approved.

[Agbe]

Breaking news:

GRAYSCALE BITCOIN TRUST (BTC): BARRY E. SILBERT AND MARK MURPHY NOTIFIED OF THEIR RESIGNATION FROM BOARD OF GRAYSCALE INVESTMENTS - SEC FILING - RTRS


Still unclear the reason.
Not a good sign for me.

Really there was no clear reason for the reshuffling of the board members and you can see some of the information from these two links. Grayscale Investments chair Barry Silbert resigns while SEC mulls Bitcoin ETF and Barry Silbert, Mark Murphy Resign In Grayscale Reshuffle reshuffling of workers in a company in some case help to grow the company in a good direction if the management is not working well to achieve the goal the reshuffling is good idea.

[franky1]

grayscale said this

a Grayscale spokeswoman said. "Aligned with Grayscale’s commitment to responsible growth, we are pleased to welcome Mark Shifke, Matt Kummell and Edward McGee to Grayscale’s board of directors, Grayscale and our investors will benefit from their respective experiences in the financial services and asset management industries as we prepare for Grayscale’s next chapter."

so yep SEC did not have confidence in the old management teams lack of experience in fund management of an ETF

I find this quite amusing, as the SEC is now telegraphing each move to every ETF applicant right now. Being overzealous toward the ETF sponsors maybe means less cautious when approving, letting the all the bunch of issuers fight to get the bigger share of the market.
SEC is now terrified to be accused of picking a winner (or a loser, fwiw) that is now worried about everyone doing theri homework and having the ETF approved.

nah
its more like each ETF dont want to be left behind so are asking the SEC about what stipulations/requirements each one lacks in the confidence level of all being approved in jan 2024
and each are getting answered quite quickly. yep the SEC is finally communicating with ETF applicants and sharing the requirements each one lacks. which is where the ETF are then speedily updating their SEC filings to meet the latest requirements

EG the ETF that were doing "inkind" were being asked to offer "in cash" settlements of btc basket closing.
EG some who lack previous experience in funds management are asked to change the directorships with guys with experience, to gain regulatory confidence that competes with ETF applicants that had previous experience

the ETF are all in a rush to meet requirements in the hopes it will make the SEC release an announcement of more then just 1 approval at a time
but before december 2023 the SEC was no where near able/ready to approve any.. let alone more then 1 etf at a time as they all missed certain requirements

although "favouritism" is a witch-hunt word which people shout if SEC dont approve many at once.. but even from an outsiders point of view id have more confidence in blackrocks position in november 2023 compared to grayscale 2023 position
so i wouldnt call it favouritism if the SEC chose blackrock before grayscale. it call it smart thinking to choose one that has for decades been offering maany etf's, so know what they are doing. compared to grayscales previous directors thats never handled a ETF before

but grayscale now changing its directorships around, so gains some footing of confidence. so maybe grayscale has better hope of being approved alongside blackrock. though there are still some other considerations that show grayscale still lack certain things compared to blackrock
(EG the legal battles of funds loss/debt the DCG done in recent years)

[fillippone]

ETF approval is nigh, the real question is: "Will GBTC be in the same batch as the other issuers"?
Yesterday there was an X-space with the two BBG gurus Balchunas and Seyffart and the hypothesis that GBTC would be excluded from the day 1 launch surfaced, they both more or less agreed on that.
This could have massive implications for GBTC, which actually saw the spread narrowing to less than 6%.

[franky1]

ETF approval is nigh, the real question is: "Will GBTC be in the same batch as the other issuers"?
Yesterday there was an X-space with the two BBG gurus Balchunas and Seyffart and the hypothesis that GBTC would be excluded from the day 1 launch surfaced, they both more or less agreed on that.
This could have massive implications for GBTC, which actually saw the spread narrowing to less than 6%.

officially only ARK21 has the jan 10th FINAL deadline, the others have FINAL deadlines for March onwards
where by some only have "next"(interim deadlines) in january 14th-17th
with hashdex having a "next" interim deadline on the 1st of january and they did NOT get any news at all.. (shows some possibility that the others with just interim deadlines in january may get ignored too)

however the SEC has been not only consulting with the CBOE (finalising ark) but also with NYSE, NASDAQ to suggest finalising some others too

i still dont think all dozen will get approved simultaneously,
but the main 4-6ish will sometime before summer, maybe at same time in january or in march

grayscale. due to all litigation of the past and present (gemini fiasco) doesnt give good confidence to the SEC, although grayscales recent change of management to people with real fund management experience would/did help..
so grayscale is still the questionable one compared to say blackrock

[JayJuanGee]

ETF approval is nigh, the real question is: "Will GBTC be in the same batch as the other issuers"?
Yesterday there was an X-space with the two BBG gurus Balchunas and Seyffart and the hypothesis that GBTC would be excluded from the day 1 launch surfaced, they both more or less agreed on that.
This could have massive implications for GBTC, which actually saw the spread narrowing to less than 6%.

.....[edited out]....
grayscale. due to all litigation of the past and present (gemini fiasco) doesnt give good confidence to the SEC, although grayscales recent change of management to people with real fund management experience would/did help..
so grayscale is still the questionable one compared to say blackrock

In regards to Grayscale, I personally believe that SEC is already punishing them quite severely by insisting upon "cash" rather than "in kind" conversion... and so in that regard, even if GBTC  goes forward (with the approval) at the same time as the others, whether it is 4-6 as proclaimed by you, Franky, or some higher number that is closer to the full number (maybe 9-12?), I am inclined to believe that Grayscale is going to largely be approved at the same time and that the number of approved will be way closer to the full number rather than Franky's lower number, which even you (Franky) seem to be coming up a bit off of your initial assertions that only 1 would be approved.. and even your date seems to becoming more accepting that these approvals are imminent.. even though it did turn out, as you suggested, that they had not gotten approved in 2023 - but still matters are humming right along, and in late November when I suggested that the could have had been approved in 2023, I actually had not realized that there were public comment periods that were until early January.

Another point regarding how soon that these matters are going to go "live" after approval, there are some folks that suggest that they may well end up going live within a few days after approval (so allowed to be traded), and part of the rationale for that might have to do with the complexity of fair advantage or if Grayscale is able to convert right away, then the ETFs should be allowed to provide competition (or an alternative place that current Grayscale customers would be able to go upon their conversion, including that the "in cash" rather than "in kind" conversion is creating a taxable event that may well more easily inspire current Grayscale customers to be more portable.. which again shows another way that Grayscale is being punished or attacked and probably Blackrock or some of the insider bullies were able to get a likely approval of those kinds of dynamics in which some of the status quo incumbents, such as Blackrock, are likely using the tools of government to create seemingly subtle, yet unfair advantages for themselves... even though you, franky, seem to just love Blackrock for its supposed competency, rather than its getting things done due to bullying and "influence".. which surely might not always be distinguishable between free market dynamics and currying favor.

[franky1]

ETF approval is nigh, the real question is: "Will GBTC be in the same batch as the other issuers"?
Yesterday there was an X-space with the two BBG gurus Balchunas and Seyffart and the hypothesis that GBTC would be excluded from the day 1 launch surfaced, they both more or less agreed on that.
This could have massive implications for GBTC, which actually saw the spread narrowing to less than 6%.

.....[edited out]....
grayscale. due to all litigation of the past and present (gemini fiasco) doesnt give good confidence to the SEC, although grayscales recent change of management to people with real fund management experience would/did help..
so grayscale is still the questionable one compared to say blackrock

In regards to Grayscale, I personally believe that SEC is already punishing them quite severely by insisting upon "cash" rather than "in kind" conversion... and so in that regard, even if GBTC  goes forward (with the approval) at the same time as the others, whether it is 4-6 as proclaimed by you, Franky, or some higher number that is closer to the full number (maybe 9-12?), I am inclined to believe that Grayscale is going to largely be approved at the same time and that the number of approved will be way closer to the full number rather than Franky's lower number, which even you (Franky) seem to be coming up a bit off of your initial assertions that only 1 would be approved.. and even your date seems to becoming more accepting that these approvals are imminent.. even though it did turn out, as you suggested, that they had not gotten approved in 2023 - but still matters are humming right along, and in late November when I suggested that the could have had been approved in 2023, I actually had not realized that there were public comment periods that were until early January.

Another point regarding how soon that these matters are going to go "live" after approval, there are some folks that suggest that they may well end up going live within a few days after approval (so allowed to be traded), and part of the rationale for that might have to do with the complexity of fair advantage or if Grayscale is able to convert right away, then the ETFs should be allowed to provide competition (or an alternative place that current Grayscale customers would be able to go upon their conversion, including that the "in cash" rather than "in kind" conversion is creating a taxable event that may well more easily inspire current Grayscale customers to be more portable.. which again shows another way that Grayscale is being punished or attacked and probably Blackrock or some of the insider bullies were able to get a likely approval of those kinds of dynamics in which some of the status quo incumbents, such as Blackrock, are likely using the tools of government to create seemingly subtle, yet unfair advantages for themselves... even though you, franky, seem to just love Blackrock for its supposed competency, rather than its getting things done due to bullying and "influence".. which surely might not always be distinguishable between free market dynamics and currying favor.

first of all after the approval and even now pre approval, people cant buy one grayscale share and then convert it to 0.00089445 real btc
"grayscale customers" never have nor will get that ability. before or after approval

the whole SEC regulation about "in-cash" is about BASKETS(allotments) of shares being managed by agents(fund managers(authorised participants)) dissolving a basket of shares and get the reciprocal coins unlocked where the custodian then sales on OTC/darkpool by which the agents then get cash from custodian

again an ETF is never going to be where "customers" get to swap shares for sats

.. secondly
im not a fan of blackrock. however i recognise their playbook
if you see how blackrock is doing BIG deals in land grabs of eastern ukraine. you will notice they are big players in investments and deals. they have history. and that cant be ignored

though grayscale has been a bitcoin associated brand for nearly a decade and blackrock are only toddlers in the crypto market. blackrocks financial experience of ETF approvals is not something to ignore. and grayscales crypto involvement is not something to inflate as superior in regards to SEC decisions

thirdly
im not the one creating deadlines
for instance
ARK21 FINAL deadline is jan 10th

but the others just have interim deadlines
and like i said hashdex and franklin both had interim deadlines of JANUARY FIRST.. but they didnt get approved
so with bitwise(jan 14th) blackrock(jan 15th) INTERIM(NOT FINAL) there is a chance SEC may deny ARK21 on the 10th and then delay the rest until their final deadlines of march-june

that said.. i said chance..
with SEC not just communicating with CBOE for arks approval but also nasdaq and nyse for the others. there is chance of SOME approvals at ark21's deadline.. but its not set in stone, proven, guaranteed

[highalch]

he two BBG gurus Balchunas and Seyffart and the hypothesis that GBTC would be excluded from the day 1 launch surfaced, they both more or less agreed on that

Well, this would explain why Cathie Wood was selling recently. She could have even more insider info than Balchunas.

[franky1]

he two BBG gurus Balchunas and Seyffart and the hypothesis that GBTC would be excluded from the day 1 launch surfaced, they both more or less agreed on that

Well, this would explain why Cathie Wood was selling recently. She could have even more insider info than Balchunas.

cathie woods also had SEC communication whereby if she believes her ETF is not able to operate in january there is no point submitting more filings at the end of december. so by her submitting the forms in late december needed to finalise the conditions she is pretty much stating she is ready to roll

so yes grabbing cash out of other investments to then seed her own is good business

[fillippone]

so yes grabbing cash out of other investments to then seed her own is good business

Also, they want to avoid the GBTC risk of no go on the first date. They made good money with GBTC shares, and there is no point of simultaneously finance a competitor, and risk a discount widening in case of SEC denial.
I wouldn't read too much into this move, frankly.

[JayJuanGee]

ETF approval is nigh, the real question is: "Will GBTC be in the same batch as the other issuers"?
Yesterday there was an X-space with the two BBG gurus Balchunas and Seyffart and the hypothesis that GBTC would be excluded from the day 1 launch surfaced, they both more or less agreed on that.
This could have massive implications for GBTC, which actually saw the spread narrowing to less than 6%.

.....[edited out]....
grayscale. due to all litigation of the past and present (gemini fiasco) doesnt give good confidence to the SEC, although grayscales recent change of management to people with real fund management experience would/did help..
so grayscale is still the questionable one compared to say blackrock

In regards to Grayscale, I personally believe that SEC is already punishing them quite severely by insisting upon "cash" rather than "in kind" conversion... and so in that regard, even if GBTC  goes forward (with the approval) at the same time as the others, whether it is 4-6 as proclaimed by you, Franky, or some higher number that is closer to the full number (maybe 9-12?), I am inclined to believe that Grayscale is going to largely be approved at the same time and that the number of approved will be way closer to the full number rather than Franky's lower number, which even you (Franky) seem to be coming up a bit off of your initial assertions that only 1 would be approved.. and even your date seems to becoming more accepting that these approvals are imminent.. even though it did turn out, as you suggested, that they had not gotten approved in 2023 - but still matters are humming right along, and in late November when I suggested that the could have had been approved in 2023, I actually had not realized that there were public comment periods that were until early January.

Another point regarding how soon that these matters are going to go "live" after approval, there are some folks that suggest that they may well end up going live within a few days after approval (so allowed to be traded), and part of the rationale for that might have to do with the complexity of fair advantage or if Grayscale is able to convert right away, then the ETFs should be allowed to provide competition (or an alternative place that current Grayscale customers would be able to go upon their conversion, including that the "in cash" rather than "in kind" conversion is creating a taxable event that may well more easily inspire current Grayscale customers to be more portable.. which again shows another way that Grayscale is being punished or attacked and probably Blackrock or some of the insider bullies were able to get a likely approval of those kinds of dynamics in which some of the status quo incumbents, such as Blackrock, are likely using the tools of government to create seemingly subtle, yet unfair advantages for themselves... even though you, franky, seem to just love Blackrock for its supposed competency, rather than its getting things done due to bullying and "influence".. which surely might not always be distinguishable between free market dynamics and currying favor.

first of all after the approval and even now pre approval, people cant buy one grayscale share and then convert it to 0.00089445 real btc
"grayscale customers" never have nor will get that ability. before or after approval

the whole SEC regulation about "in-cash" is about BASKETS(allotments) of shares being managed by agents(fund managers(authorised participants)) dissolving a basket of shares and get the reciprocal coins unlocked where the custodian then sales on OTC/darkpool by which the agents then get cash from custodian

again an ETF is never going to be where "customers" get to swap shares for sats

I never said that anyone can swap their shares (whether ETF or otherwise) for sats, but I was referring to a taxable event that happens if you go from BTC to cash versus if you went from BTC to BTC.

.. secondly
im not a fan of blackrock. however i recognise their playbook
if you see how blackrock is doing BIG deals in land grabs of eastern ukraine. you will notice they are big players in investments and deals. they have history. and that cant be ignored

I did not notice, but I would imagine if they are one of the largest (if not the largest) asset manager in the world, then they must be doing something to make money (including having a variety of experiences and likely tentacles in a lot of places)

though grayscale has been a bitcoin associated brand for nearly a decade and blackrock are only toddlers in the crypto market. blackrocks financial experience of ETF approvals is not something to ignore. and grayscales crypto involvement is not something to inflate as superior in regards to SEC decisions

I doubt that I said that, but even if you are trying to act as if you are neutral, by your touting of Blackrock as so much better blah blah blah, you seem to be implying that it is acceptable for SEC to pick winners and losers and to give favorable treatment to Blackrock (even if you are not directly saying it)....

thirdly
im not the one creating deadlines
for instance
ARK21 FINAL deadline is jan 10th

but the others just have interim deadlines
and like i said hashdex and franklin both had interim deadlines of JANUARY FIRST.. but they didnt get approved
so with bitwise(jan 14th) blackrock(jan 15th) INTERIM(NOT FINAL) there is a chance SEC may deny ARK21 on the 10th and then delay the rest until their final deadlines of march-june

Sure, it could happen, even though we seem to have so much ramping up of expectations that the approval of various ETFs is imminent.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trading on what seems to be the sentiment of a lot of folks, besides uie-pooie, who watches the space in detail.

And, yeah, I know that people get hyped up, but it is seeming to be a pretty BIG deal - especially the way that there seems to be so much ongoing interactions with various ETF applicants (and various kinds of ongoing public filings of further preparations and millions being put into advertisements for ETF products) that seem to be pushing things along in terms of closer and closer likelihood of approvals, including good chances of earlier next week.. and yeah, it is not a done deal, but still.. seeming like pretty good odds of sooner rather than later approval.

that said.. i said chance..
with SEC not just communicating with CBOE for arks approval but also nasdaq and nyse for the others. there is chance of SOME approvals at ark21's deadline.. but its not set in stone, proven, guaranteed

Well, I agree with you on this point.  It is not approved until it is approved. 

[franky1]

I doubt that I said that, but even if you are trying to act as if you are neutral, by your touting of Blackrock as so much better blah blah blah, you seem to be implying that it is acceptable for SEC to pick winners and losers and to give favorable treatment to Blackrock (even if you are not directly saying it)....

im not touting blackrock out of favouritism. nor do i think the SEC would..

put it this way. imagine any other legal setting
lets use court cases of DUI's as a for instance
there is a defence attorney that has been defending DUI suspects for decades. and has won 99%

then there is a naive defence attorney, never defended before, but has some guys with some experience advising him..

you just read their court history of case results(or lack there of)

which defence attorney would you pick?

its just basic common sense if blackrocks legal team have been filing ETF applications for decades, they know what to expect and have answers ready, rebuttals prepped and such

its not favouritism of "aww this young attorney looks young and cute, ill have him, over the old guy"
its more so of looking at the logical common sense of accepting the one with most experience, without favouritism

that said. only ARK21 has an actual final deadline in january so technically only ARK21 is the only one deserving of an announcement either way legally
which as we seen by grayscales final deadline last year. wasnt a defacto approval just because of final deadline status.

so there is chance none get approved in january from a legal prospective of previous precedence..

however the odds are more interesting this time compared to the grayscale decision saga last year. because the SEC is now actually talking and organising and actually shows movement

..
here is another pebble in the water, for you to splash about with thoughts over

what if ark21 gets approval on jan10th but is stated it cant start offering shares for XX days
nothing else about the rest is said on jan 11th,12th,13th,14th.. then on the 15th SEC announces 4 others are approved and can start offering shares in XX minus 5 days.. meaning they all start offering shares on the same day of a later date..

..
let me take the thought one pebble further
what if XX days was 90days meaning april 10th.. meaning long after some others FINAL deadline in march
whereby in march the others get approved and able to begin with just a <28 day delay. again meaning all start on april 10th

[JayJuanGee]

I doubt that I said that, but even if you are trying to act as if you are neutral, by your touting of Blackrock as so much better blah blah blah, you seem to be implying that it is acceptable for SEC to pick winners and losers and to give favorable treatment to Blackrock (even if you are not directly saying it)....

im not touting blackrock out of favouritism. nor do i think the SEC would..

put it this way. imagine any other legal setting
lets use court cases of DUI's as a for instance
there is a defence attorney that has been defending DUI suspects for decades. and has won 99%

then there is a naive defence attorney, never defended before, but has some guys with some experience advising him..

you just read their court history of case results(or lack there of)

which defence attorney would you pick?

I could give less than two ratts' asses which one is better or which one to pick.  I am not making any recommendation that anyone use those products, but there are going to be people who are choosing ETFs based on what is available to them, and sure maybe they will have access to choose whichever one that they want, and maybe their will be limitations on which ones are available to them.

As far as the government is concerned, it seems that their job is to allow most if not all of the ETFs, and to let the market decide which is better.. so long as they ETFs meet the basic requirements, they should be approved, which maybe all 12, 13 14 or whatever will end up getting approved, then it is up to each of them to attract clients/customers.

its just basic common sense if blackrocks legal team have been filing ETF applications for decades, they know what to expect and have answers ready, rebuttals prepped and such

Yes, maybe customers will end up choosing them.  I give few shits.

And, likely the government is supposed to be creating the appearance that they give few shits either, so long as people are able to freely choose which one(s) they want to put their money into.

its not favouritism of "aww this young attorney looks young and cute, ill have him, over the old guy"
its more so of looking at the logical common sense of accepting the one with most experience, without favouritism

that said. only ARK21 has an actual final deadline in january so technically only ARK21 is the only one deserving of an announcement either way legally
which as we seen by grayscales final deadline last year. wasnt a defacto approval just because of final deadline status.

so there is chance none get approved in january from a legal prospective of previous precedence..

This part of your answer seems repetitive.

however the odds are more interesting this time compared to the grayscale decision saga last year. because the SEC is now actually talking and organising and actually shows movement

I agree.. some kind of an approval seems imminent.

here is another pebble in the water, for you to splash about with thoughts over

what if ark21 gets approval on jan10th but is stated it cant start offering shares for XX days
nothing else about the rest is said on jan 11th,12th,13th,14th.. then on the 15th SEC announces 4 others are approved and can start offering shares in XX minus 5 days.. meaning they all start offering shares on the same day of a later date..

That does not seem likely, but if it were to happen like that, it seems that from your hypothetical Ark21 was not ready by its own doing.

let me take the thought one pebble further
what if XX days was 90days meaning april 10th.. meaning long after some others FINAL deadline in march
whereby in march the others get approved and able to begin with just a <28 day delay. again meaning all start on april 10th

I don't see what is so challenging about your hypothetical, unless you are saying that the SEC is creating the condition in which others are allowed to start first. 

I think that we are getting too much in the weeds, and neither of us is really adding any new value/information at this point.