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

[fillippone]

Some of those privately offered investments are also publicly quoted on the public market.

Absolutely correct.
There have apparently been public quotes on the OTC market for a few of the Grayscale Trusts that were made available through private placements. On the OTCQX Best Market, individual and institutional investors may also trade the Trusts' shares publicly.
https://www.grayscale.com/crypto-products

Speaking of those funds, it is absolutely mind blowing how they are trading: none at NAV, BTC and ETH at discount, ETC at huge discount, while other LINK for example at an astonishing premium.

[franky1]

My main reason for bringing it up was ONLY to suggest that the dates for approval might be December 1st at the soonest, and I was not really even caring to get into any of the details of the meaning  of what they were doing,

the particular ETF applications involed in the link, dealing with the "cash creation" detail.. are applications that are not even insync with grayscale a couple years ago. though their consultation period may be a couple weeks for this detail. they are still a far behind grayscales progress..
the company you linked is not going to get an approval in december. they just have a deadline to sort themselves out to re apply with an application that sounds more closer to what grayscale was offering 2 years ago.

even though I presumed that it would have been for various kinds of control and/or manipulation prevention reasons and that sourcing of the coins would be known, and sure maybe there is also the tax monitoring advantages .. whether that was a central motivation or not, we already should have known that self-custody is not part of any the current expectations of any of the ETFs.. so that surely is part of the reason that the ownership of any ETF is inferior to owning spot BTC.. but surely there are going to be both institutions and also some individuals who end up getting into BTC because of the ETF price exposure that is allowable through their retirement savings accounts that would not allow for the direct purchasing and/or custody of BTC.

its mostly the SEC doesnt want to see actual real BTC assets on the nasdaq. for many reasons.. but yea i can and most can see that the 'in-kind' (shares-btc direct 'liek for like') would be a tax avoidance method.. they want to prevent, by forcing nasdaq traders to be forced to cash out at each trade to trigger cap-gains

I suppose many of us have concerns about BIG players owning and controlling so many BTC, even if they have fiduciary duties to the supposed real owners, while we still have a not your keys not your coins situation that could end up having various blow-up scenarios that are bad for the users and perhaps even bad for bitcoin as a whole since some of the direct power of owning and controlling BTC would be held by the custodian who may well not be acting in the interest of the person who believes that he owns bitcoin when he only owns claims to bitcoin...or maybe he ONLY owns bitcoin price exposure..

well when you look at how relaxed regulators are with auditing any employers pension reserves for their employees. and how many companies syphon their employees pension pots.. its obvious that things like coinbase could just ruin things not just from their own customers but from their corporate clients using coinbase as a custodian..
the SEC is attempting to mitigate risk. but its still mostly asking these companies to do self-review have policies internally to self regulate so that the SEC doesnt have to send in personel every month to audit reserves..

i too find it strange they would rather have one coinbase custodianise 3 main ETF institutions rather then suggest independent key holders(multisig) not all affiliated with coinbase(and thus DCG)

[Gormicsta]

Speaking of those funds, it is absolutely mind blowing how they are trading: none at NAV, BTC and ETH at discount, ETC at huge discount, while other LINK for example at an astonishing premium.

Well that's certainly because the demand of LINK from the investors drives its trading price. the demands are pretty high, Hence the reason they can trade at a premium, investors are willing to pay more than the NAV of the funds. They  are pretty optimistic about the prospects of the assets so you can't blame them for being willing to pay a premium for those assets. I believe the investor's sentiment isn't that optimistic about BTC, ETH and ETC, Hence the reason the funds are traded at crazy discounts. It sure is Mind blowing lol.

[JayJuanGee]

My main reason for bringing it up was ONLY to suggest that the dates for approval might be December 1st at the soonest, and I was not really even caring to get into any of the details of the meaning  of what they were doing,

the particular ETF applications involed in the link, dealing with the "cash creation" detail.. are applications that are not even insync with grayscale a couple years ago. though their consultation period may be a couple weeks for this detail. they are still a far behind grayscales progress..
the company you linked is not going to get an approval in december. they just have a deadline to sort themselves out to re apply with an application that sounds more closer to what grayscale was offering 2 years ago.

Yeah, but I already explained that I did not really pick the article in order to describe any substance beyond the fact that the SEC has likely put off its approval of any BTC spot ETF by two weeks because I am pretty sure the SEC made similar requests to all of the ETF applicants to the extent that the ETF applicants might not have already had such clarity in their Spot ETF applications.

Speaking of those funds, it is absolutely mind blowing how they are trading: none at NAV, BTC and ETH at discount, ETC at huge discount, while other LINK for example at an astonishing premium.

Well that's certainly because the demand of LINK from the investors drives its trading price. the demands are pretty high, Hence the reason they can trade at a premium, investors are willing to pay more than the NAV of the funds. They  are pretty optimistic about the prospects of the assets so you can't blame them for being willing to pay a premium for those assets. I believe the investor's sentiment isn't that optimistic about BTC, ETH and ETC, Hence the reason the funds are traded at crazy discounts. It sure is Mind blowing lol.

Your theory (or your explanation regarding what is going on) sounds backwards Gormicsta.  

I would think that if there are other kinds of ETF product on the markets or other somewhat competitive products available then that could effect the direction whether premium or discount, and surely if there are prospects of an ETFs getting approved and coming onto the market, then that could well affect the differentiations in trust fund price (and the directions) relative to NAV... so I doubt the direction and/or the distance from NAV is a reflection of the quality of the underlying product.. .not that I am trading or playing around with any of those products, in regards to by preference for spot and also my preference for BTC rather than screwing around with shitcoins whether buying directly or buying them through some kind of a trust fund or an ETF.

[Gormicsta]

Your theory (or your explanation regarding what is going on) sounds backwards Gormicsta.  

I would think that if there are other kinds of ETF product on the markets or other somewhat competitive products available then that could effect the direction whether premium or discount, and surely if there are prospects of an ETFs getting approved and coming onto the market, then that could well affect the differentiations in trust fund price (and the directions) relative to NAV... so I doubt the direction and/or the distance from NAV is a reflection of the quality of the underlying product.. .not that I am trading or playing around with any of those products, in regards to by preference for spot and also my preference for BTC rather than screwing around with shitcoins whether buying directly or buying them through some kind of a trust fund or an ETF.

You absolutely correct. But looking at it from a different angle, While the prospects of ETFs getting approved can impact trust fund prices relative to their NAV, you can't elude the fact that trust funds and ETFs can serve different purposes and relatively attend to different investor preferences. For example, trust funds may have different investment strategies, focus on specific sectors or regions. This differentiation can create a special value proposition for trust funds that may certainly give investors reason to choose trust funds even with the approval and presence of an ETFs.

[Gormicsta]

To me, that also seems to indicate that the soonest that any Spot ETF would be approved would be two weeks from yesterday.. which would be right around December 1, at the earliest.. .and sure.

To me, I doubt they would even give any approvals, even after the Spot Bitcoin ETF applicants provides the Cash Creates in two weeks. I bet they'd request for more time to review the cash Creates, maybe this could be for another two weeks, who knows. We might likely not be expecting an ETF approval from SEC this year.

[JayJuanGee]

To me, that also seems to indicate that the soonest that any Spot ETF would be approved would be two weeks from yesterday.. which would be right around December 1, at the earliest.. .and sure.

To me, I doubt they would even give any approvals, even after the Spot Bitcoin ETF applicants provides the Cash Creates in two weeks. I bet they'd request for more time to review the cash Creates, maybe this could be for another two weeks, who knows. We might likely not be expecting an ETF approval from SEC this year.

Yes.  There are some members who believe that the January 10, 2024 deadline is more realistic and others who believe that it has good odds of being approved this year.  I don't have strong feelings on the topic, but I am a bit more inclined to speculate that the ETFs have good chances of being approved this year instead of the first 10 days of 2024... but I am not going to hold my breath, and also if they end up getting pushed off after January 10th, then I would not be totally surprised even though it seems that there are a lot of indications that seem to show that approval is imminent. .which has me leaning towards believing this year has greater odds, and I might even be willing to entertain a friendly 50/50 bet, in which I take this year as my preferred side of the bet.

[franky1]

SEC have never shown any evidence of announcing early. they have always waited out deadlines or extended deadlines
i doubt they would wait out a year and then suddenly decide before the next set of deadlines in january that december will suddenly be magically a eventful time to break the cycle and announce before year end.

plus this weeks deadlines on the applications that are propositioning "in-kind" transfers frm shares to btc direct,  has nothing to do with any "final" decision. much like greyscale  last year when SEC asked them to list coinbase as third party. it wasnt a final deadline that demanded a final decision/acceptance event

im thinking jan-march something will happen. but it would more then likely be blackrock as my odds, compared to grayscale.
grayscale dont have ETF experience nor proof of money management for pension funds.. plus alot of legal battles with grayscales sister companies.. so blackrock has better positives than grayscale

here is what i think of genslers mindset
saying no/declining/delaying does not affect gensler personally.. he does not go out of pocket for objecting.. the lawsuits are paid via our tax money not his salary
infact the longer he can delay or say he is working on things the more grants/budget/expenses he can claim to cover 'costs' of evaluation.

however if he just blindly accepted all ETF as written. and one of them go wrong and cause millions of pensioners to lose their pensions.. his personal head would be on the chopping block. he would be answerable for his actions for letting a ETF start without oversight,due diligence

so dont expect a rush. there is no benefit to sec/gensler, in gensler rushing things

[JayJuanGee]

SEC have never shown any evidence of announcing early. they have always waited out deadlines or extended deadlines
i doubt they would wait out a year and then suddenly decide before the next set of deadlines in january that december will suddenly be magically a eventful time to break the cycle and announce before year end.

plus this weeks deadlines on the applications that are propositioning "in-kind" transfers frm shares to btc direct,  has nothing to do with any "final" decision. much like greyscale  last year when SEC asked them to list coinbase as third party. it wasnt a final deadline that demanded a final decision/acceptance event

im thinking jan-march something will happen. but it would more then likely be blackrock as my odds, compared to grayscale.
grayscale dont have ETF experience nor proof of money management for pension funds.. plus alot of legal battles with grayscales sister companies.. so blackrock has better positives than grayscale

here is what i think of genslers mindset
saying no/declining/delaying does not affect gensler personally.. he does not go out of pocket for objecting.. the lawsuits are paid via our tax money not his salary
infact the longer he can delay or say he is working on things the more grants/budget/expenses he can claim to cover 'costs' of evaluation.

however if he just blindly accepted all ETF as written. and one of them go wrong and cause millions of pensioners to lose their pensions.. his personal head would be on the chopping block. he would be answerable for his actions for letting a ETF start without oversight,due diligence

so dont expect a rush. there is no benefit to sec/gensler, in gensler rushing things

You make a lot of decent points Franky.. and I am not even that attached to any opinion that I have expressed in regards to my inclinations for December... but I do have some beliefs that underpin why I am inclined towards some of my thinking about some of the balancing that is going on in Gensler's thinking and/or the SEC.. and sure sometimes I am conflicted too since I am not really any kind of expert to know how much weight he or the SEC might give to some of the tradeoffs.

The SEC has been engaged in a quite a few legal battles and losing them, not only their legal battle with Grayscale, but also several aspects with their legal battles with Ripple and some of the other projects that they are wanting to label as securities.. so they have pretty strong opinions about everything else but bitcoin is a security, but the courts are not going along with them.

So just in regards to the bitcoin related ETFs, Blackrock has ONLY been in the application game for a few months, but once Blackrock filed (was it after the SEC lost the Grayscale or the Ripple case.. anyhow those two cases were lost right around the same time anyhow), it seemed that the sentiment changed towards the likelihood that an ETF would be approved in a fairly soon manner.

There is a kind of balancing regarding whether Blackrock could get approved first when there are around a dozen other applicants, and surely the Grayscale conversion does not fit into the same bucket as the various other ETF applicants... but a lot of the ETF applications are setting themselves up in similar ways, in accordance with back and forth communications with the SEC.

It seems to me that the SEC has to go through their approval process without appearances of favoritism (towards Blackrock for example, or unduly beating up on Grayscale, even though the court had beaten up the SEC pretty badly in their Grayscale decision).  If they are going to deny any of the ETFs or distinguish one situation from another they have to make sure that they have pretty sound reasoning since the court had already ruled that the SEC's prior reasoning had little to no reasoning involved (which is part of the definition of arbitrary and capricious) including the SEC's attempt to suggest that a futures ETF product is superior to a spot ETF product in terms of following the market (or not being able to be manipulated).

I hate to even say much more because I feel that I am getting out of my depth.. and surely there are some theories that are similar to yours Franky in which some folks are saying that Gensler is not really going to approve, just delay delay and delay, and even if you might not have that strong of an assertion, Franky, I am just not persuaded that the SEC remains in that kind of a mode - even given some of the ways that Gensler has recently been talking about the status of the Spot BTC ETFs and even the level of the SEC's seeking various clarifications and/or coordinations which just seems to support that they are imminent to be approved.. and that they are likely all to be approved.. even Grayscale with some of what seems to have had been fraud going on.. .. and again, I am not necessarily going to be surprised if a rabbit gets pulled out of a hat in regards to some kind of a new reason to delay everyone.. maybe even if some new criminal charges were to be brought against Grayscale that might force them to get bought by blackrock or some other Big company and/or they would like to get rid of Binance too.. but those all seem to be wishing for too much too soon, and I have my doubts about whether they are going to be able to get their list of wishes and just be faced with so much pressure to approve a Spot ETF.. even quite a bit of vocalization and various ongoing threats coming out of congress too.

[franky1]

So just in regards to the bitcoin related ETFs, Blackrock has ONLY been in the application game for a few months, but once Blackrock filed (was it after the SEC lost the Grayscale or the Ripple case.. anyhow those two cases were lost right around the same time anyhow), it seemed that the sentiment changed towards the likelihood that an ETF would be approved in a fairly soon manner.

There is a kind of balancing regarding whether Blackrock could get approved first when there are around a dozen other applicants, and surely the Grayscale conversion does not fit into the same bucket as the various other ETF applicants... but a lot of the ETF applications are setting themselves up in similar ways, in accordance with back and forth communications with the SEC.

applications are not a "first-in" "first-accepted" policy.. some applications can get filed years ago and go for years being delayed, declined, appealed, re-filed, delayed, denied, appealed, refilled. (repeat repeat repeat) whilst others can be fast tracked and just tick all SEC boxes and get approved before the "first-in"

looking at all applications.. blackrock ticks more boxes then greyscale.
im not saying SEC will accept blackrock before THEIR deadline.. but im saying its more then likely the SEC will delay, deny-appeal,re-file process all the others

the SEC knows whomever gets accepted forms the precedence of criteria which other companies can then emulate/copy as a template to fast track their attempts for second, third place acceptance.. so the first acceptance needs to truly tick all boxes

there are other details like wallstreet/regulators want to have a high barrier of entry. its to prevent cheap competition offering similar services. so companies want to follow regulations to a point where its difficult for other companies to emulate.

i wouldnt call it favouritism for the SEC to pick blackrock first. id call it blackrock know how to do ETF applications, know what the SEC needs. and has experience in operating ETF.
its kind of like a job interview. would you recruit low barrier of entry inexperienced person with no skills with some legal trouble.. or a skilled/experienced recruit..

im playing the odds that 2024 WILL see a ETF operating.. but no announcement as soon as december.. and definitely not some unpopular untested brand like the one applying that wants self custody and share redeems 'in-kind' direct to crypto to avoid cash settlement (gain triggers)

my personal belief on favouritism would be if SEC was waiting for "roth", JPmorgan or Chasebank or some other commercial bank to apply

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

i wouldnt call it favouritism for the SEC to pick blackrock first. id call it blackrock know how to do ETF applications, know what the SEC needs. and has experience in operating ETF.

Sometimes you provide some interesting talking points Franky, but sometimes you can be so annoying too when you seem to lecture in regards to some basics and then you seem to either gloss over other basics or to miss some whole areas of basic dynamics.

If the SEC ends up being accused of favoritism or even accused of being arbitrary and/or capricious, it does not necessarily need to be actually true that they are engaging in favoritism or that they are being arbitrary and/or capricious or lacking in a rational basis for their various chosen actions and/or outcomes, but if there are perceptions of favoritism and/or perceptions of lacking in rational basis for various approvals, then those can end up being sufficient hooks for people and/or entities to file lawsuits or to seek to overturn or to interfere with the SEC's decisions.

Also, no matter what there are going to be congressmen who approve or disapprove what branches of the executive are doing and might well end up being active or less active in regards to trying to change the powers of the SEC and/or Gensler, and those kinds of pushbacks can have some effects depending on how extensive they might be.. and maybe even sometimes back and forth with the White House in regards to what the President wants (not claiming that Biden knows much of what is going on, but Biden has people who are engaging in those kinds of interactions with the SEC and/or with Gensler.. the Exec is the boss of Gensler and can actually fire him.. congress can make life miserable for the SEC and Gensler but they might not be able to get the President and/or the courts to go along with their various grumblings about the SEC/Gensler).

and definitely not some unpopular untested brand like the one applying that wants self custody and share redeems 'in-kind' direct to crypto to avoid cash settlement (gain triggers)

It seems that the SEC is requiring a kind of assurance that the applicants are going to be using "approved" liquidation (acquisition) channels... so in that regard, when the SEC is soliciting amendments to the application (or the refiling), they are letting those ones who do not do it that they are going to be denied if they do not have the approved liquidation/acquisition channels with their anticipated procedures.

[franky1]

and definitely not some unpopular untested brand like the one applying that wants self custody and share redeems 'in-kind' direct to crypto to avoid cash settlement (gain triggers)

It seems that the SEC is requiring a kind of assurance that the applicants are going to be using "approved" liquidation (acquisition) channels... so in that regard, when the SEC is soliciting amendments to the application (or the refiling), they are letting those ones who do not do it that they are going to be denied if they do not have the approved liquidation/acquisition channels with their anticipated procedures.

ETF's are not a new invention. they have been around for 30 years. things like settling shares for cash and avoiding 'in-kind' swaps to other assets has always been a condition.. so yes applications that want to self custody and do in-kind swps direct to bitcoin wont get accepted..

this again is where some applications are not getting fact tracked. they are trying to re-invent the wheel but not knowing even the standard conditions of traditional ETF. so yes they will be denied..

again its the reason im saying blackrock has better odds then the one you linked

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

this again is where some applications are not getting fact tracked. they are trying to re-invent the wheel but not knowing even the standard conditions of traditional ETF. so yes they will be denied..

again its the reason im saying blackrock has better odds then the one you linked

I already said like 2 or 3 times that I did not provide that earlier link in order to get into any specific ETF application (only to show that there has been a request for clarification from the applications that I believes justifies at least a 2 week delay - until at least December 1 for all of the BTC spot ETF applicants), and so my theory is that several of them are going to be approved at the same time, and maybe or maybe not Grayscale will be included in the approvals.. I am more inclined towards Grayscale also being included.. even though it seems that they may have engaged in something close to criminal conduct.   

I am also inclined towards hearing news of the approvals (so they can actually start operations) in 2023 rather than 2024 or later (or never as you suggest might happen).

And, yes, as far as I understand what you might be saying. You are leaning towards Blackrock first and maybe at a date in mid 2024 rather than early 2024, and maybe not any of the others being approved except Blackrock..  maybe I should go back and attempt to parse other things that you said to the extent that any of us (including you) might have any better clues than anyone else.  I will admit that I am largely guessing based on some of the reasons that I already scatteredly attempted to outline.

[franky1]

a december deadline has nothing to do with any serious ETF filing deadlines.. its just a consultation period of a filing that is not ticking very many boxes at all. so the december deadline has no connection to any importance of rushing other applications.. that was my whole point

we are already in november so you thinking there is chances of a 2023 operation also fall flat because even if one magically gets accepted it would be another 90days before fully operational.. so again 2024.

you are not going to see an operational ETF in 2023 so stop hoping for spot market pumps in 2023 caused by ETF agent basket purchases
sorry not gonna happen within the next 6 weeks

[JayJuanGee]

a december deadline has nothing to do with any serious ETF filing deadlines.. its just a consultation period of a filing that is not ticking very many boxes at all. so the december deadline has no connection to any importance of rushing other applications.. that was my whole point

No problem.  We have differing underlying theories about what we believe might end up happening, and in accordance to my theory, I doubt that the SEC is going to approve any of them until all of them have had a chance to update their application in order to have the liquidation/acquisition avenues/procedures clarified.

Under your theory none of this matters because Blackrock already knows what they are doing .. blah blah blah.. but under my theory Blackrock is going to get approved at the same time as the other 12 or whatever number of the applicants (including Grayscale conversion or not) ends up getting approved.

we are already in november so you thinking there is chances of a 2023 operation also fall flat because even if one magically gets accepted it would be another 90days before fully operational.. so again 2024.

I will agree that is a good point to support that approval in 2023 does not make any material difference in terms of actual operation of the ETF.. so fair enough on that one... so then the other portion is just for the SEC to have the approval out of the way for whatever Christmas break and/or government shutdown interferences that might be upcoming.

you are not going to see an operational ETF in 2023 so stop hoping for spot market pumps in 2023 caused by ETF agent basket purchases
sorry not gonna happen within the next 6 weeks

Oh gawd.. here is one of the parts where you get a wee bit annoying again.  For your info, I hardly give any shits if BTC pumps or not, so I am not framing any of my thinking based on pump hopium, even though I do believe that BTC could pump based on news of an approval.. but yeah, maybe they would not be able to materially acquire BTC absent any opening and/or client purchases apart from the BTC that private persons (and private institutions and governments) decide to gather on their own based on these kinds of regulatory clarity ideas and also ideas to potentially front-run the BIGGER players and to front run those who are planning to get BTC through an ETF.

[franky1]

the reason i say about stop hoping for spot approval in 2023.. because the only people wanting it are impatient people hoping for market reaction..
most bitcoins want to hold bitcoin not shares, so most bitcoins excited about ETF approvals are not exaggerating how soon a approval will happen for the ability to themselves buy shares. but instead they want it soon to see markets reaction...

as for thinking 12 will get approved at same time. that again is a pipe dream.. half the applications dont meet all specifications.. so they are not all going to get approved at same time.. at best id say 4.. but personally id say 1

..
as for the last part about the agents buying baskets
(for scenarios sake of mentioning a company lets use the topics brand: grayscale)
as soon as an approval is done. 90 days later the GBTC ETF is operational and grayscale is giving out its shares(EG 600k coin = XXXmil equivalent shares)
meaning the supply of shares is high on the 91st day.
it will take a while before greyscales own allotment of shares are sold to the public. meaning plenty of time from application approved to needing to add more baskets to supply later demand. maybe 3-6 months. so agents wont need to buy on approval day in large lumps. to then custodianise into coinbase to then collateralise to get greyscale to offer shares to agents to then sell shares to customers.. it would be a 3-6 month thing not a 1 day mega event.

grayscale wont want to accept agent openings on the 91st day as thats competition against grayscales own share allotment. so i doubt we would see agents flocking in on the 91st day buying and hoarding baskets of thousands of coins each all at once
(grayscale will have their own internal vetting process of who can be a agent/broker/dealer of their shares)

so again not some 1 day event where everyone goes on a BTC lump sum purchase event of thousands of coin in one day

yes of course there will be sentimental FOMO pumping. but not what id describe as lump sum basket buying the day a ETF is approved... my opinion ofcourse

[JayJuanGee]

the reason i say about stop hoping for spot approval in 2023.. because the only people wanting it are impatient people hoping for market reaction..
most bitcoins want to hold bitcoin not shares, so most bitcoins excited about ETF approvals are not exaggerating how soon a approval will happen for the ability to themselves buy shares. but instead they want it soon to see markets reaction...

I kind of agree with you even though I find your way of saying it as a bit patronizing and maybe even overly generalizing.

There are ways to have opinions about topics that are not ONLY just based on the number of bitcoin that we might hold or whether we might be better off if our bags are pumped, and sure there are differences between people who directly hold BTC and people who get exposure through markets through third parties or even if there might be pension plans and retirement accounts that are able to buy third party offered products and not able to buy BTC directly.

For sure, there are a lot of potential disadvantages to having so many BIG players starting to hold BTC for people and those people NOT being able to take direct possession of such BTC unless they sell their share(s) and buy the BTC directly.  So, surely there are a lot of possibilities that open up for shenanigans, and it is unclear if some of them will end up getting reckt if they are not HOLDING the underlying BTC, but then when it comes time for making certain kinds of votes about BTC and/or forks, then the fact that BTC are actually held by entities rather than individuals, some of the BTC incentives could end up getting perverted by such dynamics of normies putting value into BTC so that Blackrock (and some other larger players) can hold and/or control potentially large quantities of BTC and the forks off of such BTC.  It might not be clear how many years it might take before some of the dynamics of bitcoin ends up being perverted, especially since legislators are already trying to proclaim that BTC is ONLY valid if it is held by third parties, and those kinds of dynamics could cause quite a bit of challenges for various individual BTC HODLers...   

There are likely going to be continued informational campaigns regarding the value of BTC self-custody. and so it is difficult to see in advance how self-custody versus third party custody is going to end up playing out with the passage of time.

as for thinking 12 will get approved at same time. that again is a pipe dream.. half the applications dont meet all specifications.. so they are not all going to get approved at same time.. at best id say 4.. but personally id say 1

We can agree to disagree, and I am not going to claim to have had studied the details of the various offerings.. but maybe we could make a bet.. and if more than 6 get approved, then I win... hahahahahaha.. I am not really willing to bet very much, but it could be fun, even though we would need to find a mutually agreeable escrow and otherwise work out the terms... which I might end up getting screwed if I am not even very comfortable with my somewhat SOMA speculations in this direction.

as for the last part about the agents buying baskets
(for scenarios sake of mentioning a company lets use the topics brand: grayscale)
as soon as an approval is done. 90 days later the GBTC ETF is operational and grayscale is giving out its shares(EG 600k coin = XXXmil equivalent shares)
meaning the supply of shares is high on the 91st day.
it will take a while before greyscales own allotment of shares are sold to the public. meaning plenty of time from application approved to needing to add more baskets to supply later demand. maybe 3-6 months. so agents wont need to buy on approval day in large lumps. to then custodianise into coinbase to then collateralise to get greyscale to offer shares to agents to then sell shares to customers.. it would be a 3-6 month thing not a 1 day mega event.

grayscale wont want to accept agent openings on the 91st day as thats competition against grayscales own share allotment. so i doubt we would see agents flocking in on the 91st day buying and hoarding baskets of thousands of coins each all at once
(grayscale will have their own internal vetting process of who can be a agent/broker/dealer of their shares)

so again not some 1 day event where everyone goes on a BTC lump sum purchase event of thousands of coin in one day

Even though this is a grayscale thread, I doubt that Grayscale is a good example, because purportedly they already have enough BTC (600k or so) to cover all the shares, so the GBTC shares would get converted into Grayscale ETF shares... so yeah, maybe BTC have to be moved around, but on net there is no additional BTC purchases from the mere conversion. .even though there could be desires to get in and out of them when the new shares start to get traded.

The other ETFs would presumptively be purchasing BTC at the same rate that clients pile into the ETF products, so as soon as the ETFs go on the market, and whether there are any special acquisition abilities in the first 90 days, prior to the ETF actually going live, then surely I am not sure if that might create some market pressures, and I am not even aware of how it works with any kind of particularity.

yes of course there will be sentimental FOMO pumping. but not what id describe as lump sum basket buying the day a ETF is approved... my opinion ofcourse

You don't seem to be saying anything different than me in the pumping expectations arena.  I was largely proclaiming that pumping would be likely to come from the news of the BTC spot ETF approval in part based on the regulatory clarity that it helps to provide and the other part based on the desire to start to front run the actual product, which seems to be possible by retail and other folks who might have cash that is sitting on the sidelines and wanting to participate in some BTC pumpening.. which surely may or may not end up playing out, but I am more inclined to believe that there will be pump upon the news of whatever BTC spot ETF approvals end up happening rather than no pump or rather than a dump..

...and sure there could be some other counter-vailing news coming out at the same time, so I am not the kind of person who plays around in these kinds of plays anyhow.  I have been employing my own same system since about late 2015, which is to sell on the way up and buy on the way down, so I hardly give any shits because if the BTC price goes up I sell and if it goes down I buy.  I don't change much of anything based on what I believe might happen, except maybe on the margins.. or maybe I might change the intervals of my sales or my buys depending on how fast I might speculate that the BTC price might more in certain ranges... but ultimately, I rely little on predictions and I am more or less like a bot... but doing my resets manually since I know jack shit about how to get a bot to cooperate with my ideas of what to do without screwing things up.

[franky1]

the reason i say about stop hoping for spot approval in 2023.. because the only people wanting it are impatient people hoping for market reaction..
most bitcoins want to hold bitcoin not shares, so most bitcoins excited about ETF approvals are not exaggerating how soon a approval will happen for the ability to themselves buy shares. but instead they want it soon to see markets reaction...

I kind of agree with you even though I find your way of saying it as a bit patronizing and maybe even overly generalizing.

i have not, dont and wont do ass-kissery, hug a newbie games... dont take it personally, most of the time although i say the "you" word when quoting someone. i also recognise that hundreds of other people read these topics too, so it can apply to them too if they had similar opinions. so its not always pointing at the person i quote but others reading it that have similar idea's

but when forum topics do have their facts straight there's nothing i need to add to the topic, i mostly get involved in adding in details that are either incorrect or lack the finer detail.
most friendly styles of messaging is less about facts and more about trying to win someones trust to say any BS. and i find that tactic even worse than my direct approach

there are differences between people who directly hold BTC and people who get exposure through markets through third parties or even if there might be pension plans and retirement accounts that are able to buy third party offered products and not able to buy BTC directly.

For sure, there are a lot of potential disadvantages to having so many BIG players starting to hold BTC for people and those people NOT being able to take direct possession of such BTC unless they sell their share(s) and buy the BTC directly.  So, surely there are a lot of possibilities that open up for shenanigans, and it is unclear if some of them will end up getting reckt if they are not HOLDING the underlying BTC,

thats why the SEC doesnt want to make mistakes and less likely to broadstroke approve several in one go

but then when it comes time for making certain kinds of votes about BTC and/or forks, then the fact that BTC are actually held by entities rather than individuals, some of the BTC incentives could end up getting perverted by such dynamics of normies putting value into BTC so that Blackrock (and some other larger players) can hold and/or control potentially large quantities of BTC and the forks off of such BTC.  

when it comes to development/fork decisions. who holds more coin doesnt matter.. its who owns the most economic nodes(services) and who owns most successful mining pools.. that what chooses the vote.. and with added sponsorship of devs to add features that align to a corporations mission.. that pushes things more then how many thousands of coin they custodianised

It might not be clear how many years it might take before some of the dynamics of bitcoin ends up being perverted, especially since legislators are already trying to proclaim that BTC is ONLY valid if it is held by third parties, and those kinds of dynamics could cause quite a bit of challenges for various individual BTC HODLers...  

There are likely going to be continued informational campaigns regarding the value of BTC self-custody. and so it is difficult to see in advance how self-custody versus third party custody is going to end up playing out with the passage of time.

the US regulations/proposals are not even suggesting self-custody is bad.. thats just the mis-representations of a few of the mixer crowd not liking that their affiliated service is in hot water so they are trying to pretend the whole bitcoin ecosystem is at threat to garner support for a cause they dont even understand

as for thinking 12 will get approved at same time. that again is a pipe dream.. half the applications dont meet all specifications.. so they are not all going to get approved at same time.. at best id say 4.. but personally id say 1

We can agree to disagree, and I am not going to claim to have had studied the details of the various offerings.. but maybe we could make a bet.. and if more than 6 get approved, then I win... hahahahahaha.. I am not really willing to bet very much, but it could be fun, even though we would need to find a mutually agreeable escrow and otherwise work out the terms... which I might end up getting screwed if I am not even very comfortable with my somewhat SOMA speculations in this direction.

i dont bet, gamble or trade on this forum. nice try though

as for the last part about the agents buying baskets
(for scenarios sake of mentioning a company lets use the topics brand: grayscale)
as soon as an approval is done. 90 days later the GBTC ETF is operational and grayscale is giving out its shares(EG 600k coin = XXXmil equivalent shares)
meaning the supply of shares is high on the 91st day.
it will take a while before greyscales own allotment of shares are sold to the public. meaning plenty of time from application approved to needing to add more baskets to supply later demand. maybe 3-6 months. so agents wont need to buy on approval day in large lumps. to then custodianise into coinbase to then collateralise to get greyscale to offer shares to agents to then sell shares to customers.. it would be a 3-6 month thing not a 1 day mega event.

grayscale wont want to accept agent openings on the 91st day as thats competition against grayscales own share allotment. so i doubt we would see agents flocking in on the 91st day buying and hoarding baskets of thousands of coins each all at once
(grayscale will have their own internal vetting process of who can be a agent/broker/dealer of their shares)

so again not some 1 day event where everyone goes on a BTC lump sum purchase event of thousands of coin in one day

Even though this is a grayscale thread, I doubt that Grayscale is a good example, because purportedly they already have enough BTC (600k or so) to cover all the shares, so the GBTC shares would get converted into Grayscale ETF shares... so yeah, maybe BTC have to be moved around, but on net there is no additional BTC purchases from the mere conversion. .even though there could be desires to get in and out of them when the new shares start to get traded.

The other ETFs would presumptively be purchasing BTC at the same rate that clients pile into the ETF products, so as soon as the ETFs go on the market, and whether there are any special acquisition abilities in the first 90 days, prior to the ETF actually going live, then surely I am not sure if that might create some market pressures, and I am not even aware of how it works with any kind of particularity.

yes of course there will be sentimental FOMO pumping. but not what id describe as lump sum basket buying the day a ETF is approved... my opinion ofcourse

You don't seem to be saying anything different than me in the pumping expectations arena.  I was largely proclaiming that pumping would be likely to come from the news of the BTC spot ETF approval in part based on the regulatory clarity that it helps to provide and the other part based on the desire to start to front run the actual product, which seems to be possible by retail and other folks who might have cash that is sitting on the sidelines and wanting to participate in some BTC pumpening.. which surely may or may not end up playing out, but I am more inclined to believe that there will be pump upon the news of whatever BTC spot ETF approvals end up happening rather than no pump or rather than a dump..

...and sure there could be some other counter-vailing news coming out at the same time, so I am not the kind of person who plays around in these kinds of plays anyhow.  I have been employing my own same system since about late 2015, which is to sell on the way up and buy on the way down, so I hardly give any shits because if the BTC price goes up I sell and if it goes down I buy.  I don't change much of anything based on what I believe might happen, except maybe on the margins.. or maybe I might change the intervals of my sales or my buys depending on how fast I might speculate that the BTC price might more in certain ranges... but ultimately, I rely little on predictions and I am more or less like a bot... but doing my resets manually since I know jack shit about how to get a bot to cooperate with my ideas of what to do without screwing things up.

news/social drama pumping is temporary.. those are pump and dumps..

actual lumpsum buying and hoarding to then collateralise to give shares for pension investors to buy and hoard shares for years.. where those shares are not sold back into baskets to unlock bitcoin again.. those types of events are the value riser stuff i look for.. things that keep prices up so the next 'bottom' is higher then last bottom.. the next top is higher then the last. im not interested in the daily whims of news speculation temporary pump and dumps

i dont do day trading any more.. i just hoard and play it long. i look for the actual events that cause long term change good/bad. i dont value my hoard in the daily whims of media

[JayJuanGee]

the reason i say about stop hoping for spot approval in 2023.. because the only people wanting it are impatient people hoping for market reaction..
most bitcoins want to hold bitcoin not shares, so most bitcoins excited about ETF approvals are not exaggerating how soon a approval will happen for the ability to themselves buy shares. but instead they want it soon to see markets reaction...

I kind of agree with you even though I find your way of saying it as a bit patronizing and maybe even overly generalizing.

i have not, dont and wont do ass-kissery, hug a newbie games... dont take it personally, most of the time although i say the "you" word when quoting someone. i also recognise that hundreds of other people read these topics too, so it can apply to them too if they had similar opinions. so its not always pointing at the person i quote but others reading it that have similar idea's

I am tending not to take any of it personally, so I otherwise stand by what I already stated, even if you are saying that you are trying NOT to either be patronizing or overlygeneralizing.. so no problem... I just pointed out what I had sensed in that part of what I was responding to.

but when forum topics do have their facts straight there's nothing i need to add to the topic, i mostly get involved in adding in details that are either incorrect or lack the finer detail.
most friendly styles of messaging is less about facts and more about trying to win someones trust to say any BS. and i find that tactic even worse than my direct approach

I find that sometimes you are trying to suggest that you have superior handles on facts and logic, so that can be a bit irritating.. but no problem, I will try to stick with the topic, but it is difficult to resist when you are making those kinds of claims to superior knowledge.. it just seems unnecessary, even if it might be true from time to time.

there are differences between people who directly hold BTC and people who get exposure through markets through third parties or even if there might be pension plans and retirement accounts that are able to buy third party offered products and not able to buy BTC directly.

For sure, there are a lot of potential disadvantages to having so many BIG players starting to hold BTC for people and those people NOT being able to take direct possession of such BTC unless they sell their share(s) and buy the BTC directly.  So, surely there are a lot of possibilities that open up for shenanigans, and it is unclear if some of them will end up getting reckt if they are not HOLDING the underlying BTC,

thats why the SEC doesnt want to make mistakes and less likely to broadstroke approve several in one go

Yes, and it would be a mistake to select the winner as Blackrock only, even if they might be superior.   The market can choose in regards to which product is superior as long as each of the products have mechanisms in place that protect consumers in regards to rug pulling, price manipulation, lack of truthful disclosures or whatever it is that the SEC is supposed trying to protect when it comes to different ways that the various ETF applicants might set up their ETF and try to distinguish themselves from other players.. whether it is fees or liquidity or some other kind of term/service that they might offer.

but then when it comes time for making certain kinds of votes about BTC and/or forks, then the fact that BTC are actually held by entities rather than individuals, some of the BTC incentives could end up getting perverted by such dynamics of normies putting value into BTC so that Blackrock (and some other larger players) can hold and/or control potentially large quantities of BTC and the forks off of such BTC.  

when it comes to development/fork decisions. who holds more coin doesnt matter.. its who owns the most economic nodes(services) and who owns most successful mining pools.. that what chooses the vote.. and with added sponsorship of devs to add features that align to a corporations mission.. that pushes things more then how many thousands of coin they custodianised

You are not saying anything that I don't already know, and my main reason for bringing it up is in regards to some financial motivations that might sometimes end up existing if someone else holds the keys and they might not be obligated to share forks or to recognize forks, which may well end up having ramifications on customers.

We both should agree that clients would buy shares are entering into a kind of contractual relationship that likely is not going to allow them to directly and immediately take possession of coins, so it can surely become problematic for anyone who does not have possession of coins and their is a limited supply and they might consider that they have a lot of coins (let's say 100k coins), and then some kind of drama happens and they might not be able to get what they thought was their coins... we have enough examples with these kinds of problems in the last year and a half, so why should I have to point out more potential products even though we would be dealing with a different kind of product when referring to a spot ETF as compared with an exchange and some of the things that they were doing and other kinds of third parties who either did not end up having the coins or they were engaging in questionable practiced with what coins they did have.

It might not be clear how many years it might take before some of the dynamics of bitcoin ends up being perverted, especially since legislators are already trying to proclaim that BTC is ONLY valid if it is held by third parties, and those kinds of dynamics could cause quite a bit of challenges for various individual BTC HODLers...  
There are likely going to be continued informational campaigns regarding the value of BTC self-custody. and so it is difficult to see in advance how self-custody versus third party custody is going to end up playing out with the passage of time.

the US regulations/proposals are not even suggesting self-custody is bad.. thats just the mis-representations of a few of the mixer crowd not liking that their affiliated service is in hot water so they are trying to pretend the whole bitcoin ecosystem is at threat to garner support for a cause they dont even understand

These are moving targets and it is not just specifically US regulatory proposals that I am referring to.  There are various patterns of demonizing self-custody and trying to put restrictions on it, and I cannot help you if you do not recognize some of those attempts to control BTC and to scare people from getting involved in BTC.  Sure there are some times exaggerations and misunderstandings about what is happening, what has been passed, proposed or what is likely to pass and what might happen if it is passed.  Sometimes the exchanges will impose their own restrictions based on waht they think might be required later.. for example the recent  announcement of a Gemini rule in the UK that withdrawals/deposits can ONLY be with authorized services... which seems to be an attack on direct BTC transactions with the exchange... even if they might not immediately enforce it, there are all kinds of those kinds of examples of restrictions that I could describe and you are blind if you believe none of that is happening and/or it is not "significant" enough to matter.

as for thinking 12 will get approved at same time. that again is a pipe dream.. half the applications dont meet all specifications.. so they are not all going to get approved at same time.. at best id say 4.. but personally id say 1

We can agree to disagree, and I am not going to claim to have had studied the details of the various offerings.. but maybe we could make a bet.. and if more than 6 get approved, then I win... hahahahahaha.. I am not really willing to bet very much, but it could be fun, even though we would need to find a mutually agreeable escrow and otherwise work out the terms... which I might end up getting screwed if I am not even very comfortable with my somewhat SOMA speculations in this direction.

i dont bet, gamble or trade on this forum. nice try though

Could make it interesting, and I am not even referring to any need for any significant amount.  There is another possibility of setting the terms of the bet, and it would not need to be money but instead could just be something non-monetary.  I have probably proposed more than 10 bets, but I cannot ever recall being able to work through the details of the bet in such a way that the terms were clear and the bet was actually entered into.

[edited out]

news/social drama pumping is temporary.. those are pump and dumps..

actual lumpsum buying and hoarding to then collateralise to give shares for pension investors to buy and hoard shares for years.. where those shares are not sold back into baskets to unlock bitcoin again.. those types of events are the value riser stuff i look for.. things that keep prices up so the next 'bottom' is higher then last bottom.. the next top is higher then the last. im not interested in the daily whims of news speculation temporary pump and dumps

i dont do day trading any more.. i just hoard and play it long. i look for the actual events that cause long term change good/bad. i dont value my hoard in the daily whims of media

We are probably not very different in regards to how you seem to be maintaining your stash, even though my techniques are a little bit different from yours, I still consider that I am not playing news and/or sentiment, and largely I established most of my BTC position in 2014 and 2015.. so I have largely been in maintenance stage rather than accumulation stage since then - while at the same time, I do have my practice of selling on the way up and buying on the way down,

but I hardly consider any of that to be changed by the news.. even though  there will be times in which I will identify certain price ranges that I believe are either resistance or support or that I might be consider to be pass through areas, so sometimes I might adjust some of my orders in those ranges once I have identified them, but it tends to be tweaks rather than any large changes, and also it keeps the overall dynamic of selling on the way up and buying on the way down.. and surely some day there might be some event (or BTC price movement) that happens that triggers me to whimsically take some kind of a buy or a sell action that I had not previously planned on doing.. and those kinds of things have happened a few times in my BTC history, but so far it seems that those kinds of triggering things happened outside of bitcoin rather than anything in regards to bitcoin or bitcoin price movements.  

So for example, if the BTC price were to shoot up from our current price of $37.4K-ish to about $374k in a relatively short period of time (let's say less than a year), I might choose to sell a bit higher percentage of my BTC than what is in my usual allocation BTC sales that tends to be no more than 10% sales for every doubling of the BTC price.... and frequently it seems that my levels of sales is even lower than that... It seems to be something like 5% for every doubling of the BTC price.. even though I know that I am allowed and authorized to sell up to 10% for every doubling, and even deeper down, by just doing the math, many of us likely realize that if the BTC price doubles, then our profits have gone up 50%..

So for example if we have 10 BTC and the price goes from $30k to $60k, then the value of our BTC holdings has gone from $300k to $600k, so usually at the price of $60k per BTC, if I were to have 10 BTC, I would be authorized to sell up to $60k (1 BTC), but usually I am selling more like $30k (0.5 BTC), and some people would be tempted to sell half of their BTC at $60k which would be 5 BTC and $300k in profits, but part of the problem with that is those guys end up losing a lot of the power of the compounding effects of bitcoin, so all the way from 2015 when the BTC price was $250, it had doubled at least 8 times.

1) $250 to $500

2) $500 to $1,000

3) $1,000 to $2,000

4) $2,000 to $4,000

5) $4,000 to $8,000

6) $8,000 to $16,000

7) $16,000 to $32,000

8 ) $32,000 to $64,000

9) $64,000 to $128,000

And, even though the BTC price was in the start of the 9th doubling, we regressed back into the top of the 6th doubling, but then we can imagine a difference if we were to take out all of the profits each of the times, then our BTC portfolio would not have advantaged from the compounding effects, but if we take out somewhere between 5% and 10%, we still have a remaining 40% to 45% of the profits that rollover and add to the profits for the next time around with a kind of compounding effect that has already happened 7 to 8 times for anyone who had mostly been holding their BTC since 2015 and allowed most of their BTC to compound rather than pulling out a higher percentage of their profits along the way.

Sure, we never know which way the BTC price is going to go and/or whether we might be able to benefit from the compounding effects that are possible in BTC and that have significantly and materially happened over the years.. even though there might be times that some of us might be worried about how BIG is the correction and whether the BTC price is going to recover after it had corrected so greatly.  So I guess that I am saying that systems can be put into place to try to take advantage of the price going up and even benefiting from the price going down too.. yet anyone who had gotten into BTC in more recent times would be starting out with higher numbers and they might have troubles going through as many doublings as someone who had gotten into BTC at earlier times.

[franky1]

i dont make claims of superior knowledge but i do admit i do do research. my claims are of opinion based on math logic common sense and research..
the parts that get me annoyed, (and yes i confess i do show my annoyances when i write. im human, not a script bot)..  is when people pretend to be influencers or hope to send their message out to go viral or get attention, trying to shout deadlines of big news to cause some media hype.. but they themselves have not even done any research.. (not personal to just you. a few have done it which is multiplying the annoyance..  which then requires poking at suggested reasoning)

for instance
december is not actually a deadline of approval/rejection of the 12.. yet some keep saying it is

for instance the hype of
"all 12 will get approved at same time"
based on what!!!??

if people even took a non-superior, common sense glance at all 12 they would see many of the applications fall short on even basic/standard fiat asset  ETF practices of fund management security/processes.. so it does annoy me when blanket statements are made to suggest market movements are approaching due to all ETF being approved on X date.. but lack any reasonable justification for why they think all of them will be approved at same time(non superiorly, just logically, commonsensically based on even a glance of the applications)

Yes, and it would be a mistake to select the winner as Blackrock only, even if they might be superior.   The market can choose in regards to which product is superior as long as each of the products have mechanisms in place that protect consumers in regards to rug pulling, price manipulation, lack of truthful disclosures or whatever it is that the SEC is supposed trying to protect when it comes to different ways that the various ETF applicants might set up their ETF and try to distinguish themselves from other players.. whether it is fees or liquidity or some other kind of term/service that they might offer.

but thats the thing.. a passing glance at all applications shows not all of them meet the min SEC standards. and the SEC is not there just to rubber stamp any boiler room scam into running on nasdaq and just play "let the market decide". there would be lawsuit hell if the SEC took that much of a back seat  (though yes decades of seeing fiat boiler room scams and inaction of SEC may appear the contrary)

however mentioning it again. the SEC also wants to ensure the first approval "sets the standard" as its a precedence. setting minimal requirements for the next application to reach/exceed.

you might be right that the SEC doesnt want to set a super high bar/barrier of entry standard so "might" approve more than one/in quick succession/same time. but looking (even at a glance) at the applications. not all of them have the basic kinks worked out


you know what.. just for pure humour. non mometary. not a gamble
if approval happens 2023.. ill merit your post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256529.msg63181711#msg63181711
with 50 merits..
if not 2023 you merit any post of mine you like with just 1 merit