Why we will get a Bitcoin ETF in 2021 (or early 2022) w/ poll

[OgNasty]

Many have tried to bring a true Bitcoin ETF to Wall Street over the years, starting with the Wiklevoss twins in July of 2013.  The major problem cited has always been lack of liquidity that could lead to massive volatility.  The answer to this problem has always been a bigger market.  How big is anyone's guess, but given Bitcoin's history of tracking the stock to flow pricing model, you could see potential for this year to have a major jump in valuation that would likely meet any prerequisite for market size and liquidity.  Looking at historical Bitcoin prices as if they were a fractal pattern, a good guess would be the end of the year for a massive valuation increase.  I believe that will lead the the ultimate approval of an ETF.  We may even see signaling towards an ETF approval this year if a steady increase from the current valuation is enough to meet the SEC's expectations and who knows, maybe that will even be the catalyst for the expected next wave up in the stock to flow model.

While all ETF applications have been denied to date, VanEck Associates Corp. has filed for a new Bitcoin ETF that has real potential to be the first SEC approved Bitcoin ETF.

[Biodom]

If GBTC premium evaporates, that would indicate that ETF is imminent.

[thecodebear]

I've stopped caring about an ETF a while back haha after all the attempts and the SEC just swatting them away like flies. I mean it'll be great once it does happen, and will surely boost the price, but I don't expect one soon. I voted maybe 2022 if we are lucky. I think institutions now buying into Bitcoin makes an ETF for the first time a real possibility. The SEC will see this as confirmation that Bitcoin is getting integrated into big finance and is considered a safer investment. But still I don't think an ETF is imminent. I also feel like the SEC won't approve an ETF while Bitcoin is in the middle of a big bull run due to fear of people jumping in and then the price dropping. I think 2022 or 2023 is a possibility, I don't see it happening in 2021.

[exstasie]

Many have tried to bring a true Bitcoin ETF to Wall Street over the years, starting with the Wiklevoss twins in July of 2013.  The major problem cited has always been lack of liquidity that could lead to massive volatility.  The answer to this problem has always been a bigger market.  How big is anyone's guess, but given Bitcoin's history of tracking the stock to flow pricing model, you could see potential for this year to have a major jump in valuation that would likely meet any prerequisite for market size and liquidity.

It may not matter anyway (because I think we're getting there for other reasons) but higher prices alone won't necessarily guarantee the sort of liquidity they want. In terms of market share, the SEC wanted to see volume and liquidity shift away from shady, unregulated exchanges who are hidden in uncooperative jurisdictions (Okex, Huobi, Binance, Bitmex, Bitfinex, Poloniex) and towards regulated futures and equities markets and American/European spot exchanges.

A lot has been done in that respect. Bakkt and CME futures are growing, GBTC is growing. Bitmex obviously got cut down in size. Okex, Bitfinex, Poloniex aren't quite what they used to be. But I think Binance and Huobi are still really big thorns in their side.

We're definitely getting there though, quite possibly during this bull cycle. Massive interest in the futures markets and in instruments like GBTC and Microstrategy might force their hand.

[thecodebear]

Many have tried to bring a true Bitcoin ETF to Wall Street over the years, starting with the Wiklevoss twins in July of 2013.  The major problem cited has always been lack of liquidity that could lead to massive volatility.  The answer to this problem has always been a bigger market.  How big is anyone's guess, but given Bitcoin's history of tracking the stock to flow pricing model, you could see potential for this year to have a major jump in valuation that would likely meet any prerequisite for market size and liquidity.

It may not matter anyway (because I think we're getting there for other reasons) but higher prices alone won't necessarily guarantee the sort of liquidity they want. In terms of market share, the SEC wanted to see volume and liquidity shift away from shady, unregulated exchanges who are hidden in uncooperative jurisdictions (Okex, Huobi, Binance, Bitmex, Bitfinex, Poloniex) and towards regulated futures and equities markets and American/European spot exchanges.

A lot has been done in that respect. Bakkt and CME futures are growing, GBTC is growing. Bitmex obviously got cut down in size. Okex, Bitfinex, Poloniex aren't quite what they used to be. But I think Binance and Huobi are still really big thorns in their side.

We're definitely getting there though, quite possibly during this bull cycle. Massive interest in the futures markets and in instruments like GBTC and Microstrategy might force their hand.

Yeah more liquidity in regulated American/European crypto exchanges plus spot/futures markets through traditional Wall St exchanges, plus US companies and investment firms getting in to Bitcoin are the type of things SEC is looking to before considering an ETF, and both of those things have been growing a lot the past year. While a year ago an ETF was still a pie in the sky fantasy, it now at least looks possible but I'm guessing will still take some time, but for sure the groundwork is being laid in terms of regulated liquidity and institutional investment.

It'll eventually be hard for the SEC to keep denying ETF applications when there are many billions of dollars in daily volume on regulated Wall St exchanges and US companies and investment firms own hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin. Both of these things will be the case by end of this year.

[bbc.reporter]

Many have tried to bring a true Bitcoin ETF to Wall Street over the years, starting with the Wiklevoss twins in July of 2013.  The major problem cited has always been lack of liquidity that could lead to massive volatility.  The answer to this problem has always been a bigger market.  How big is anyone's guess, but given Bitcoin's history of tracking the stock to flow pricing model, you could see potential for this year to have a major jump in valuation that would likely meet any prerequisite for market size and liquidity.

It may not matter anyway (because I think we're getting there for other reasons) but higher prices alone won't necessarily guarantee the sort of liquidity they want. In terms of market share, the SEC wanted to see volume and liquidity shift away from shady, unregulated exchanges who are hidden in uncooperative jurisdictions (Okex, Huobi, Binance, Bitmex, Bitfinex, Poloniex) and towards regulated futures and equities markets and American/European spot exchanges.

A lot has been done in that respect. Bakkt and CME futures are growing, GBTC is growing. Bitmex obviously got cut down in size. Okex, Bitfinex, Poloniex aren't quite what they used to be. But I think Binance and Huobi are still really big thorns in their side.

We're definitely getting there though, quite possibly during this bull cycle. Massive interest in the futures markets and in instruments like GBTC and Microstrategy might force their hand.

Also, large institutional investors certainly should not want their dollars near those hack prone exchanges that are in a constant questionable position with regulators hehehe.

[mk4]

I've stopped caring about an ETF a while back haha after all the attempts and the SEC just swatting them away like flies.

Same. I was pretty hyped at first back then, but due to the number of times that VanEck's ETF proposal has been denied in the past, I was like "whatever" whenever I see news about it. Lately though I've been seeing on Twitter from pretty reputable people(I don't remember who) that this recent proposal has significantly higher likeliness of getting approved. I don't know jack sh*t about ETF proposals though, so no comment about it.

[thecodebear]

I've stopped caring about an ETF a while back haha after all the attempts and the SEC just swatting them away like flies.

Same. I was pretty hyped at first back then, but due to the number of times that VanEck's ETF proposal has been denied in the past, I was like "whatever" whenever I see news about it. Lately though I've been seeing on Twitter from pretty reputable people(I don't remember who) that this recent proposal has significantly higher likeliness of getting approved. I don't know jack sh*t about ETF proposals though, so no comment about it.

Yeah I mean when it happens I'll be like "ok cool that's gonna make me richer" haha. But until one actually gets improved I don't care at all about the drama of proposals going up and getting rejected and wondering when one will finally be accepted.

[STT]

I thought the objections to ETF were far more wide ranging, they would want all volume to be placed inside USA borders rather then its naturally globally distributed nature that is not easily sanctioned or monitored I guess is the problem.   Size does help but its not enough by itself is my guess for next 12 months, also volatility and constant rises does not represent stability exactly.   I could be wrong, certainly I should read more on this because it would be big news and Im not certain on current perceptions by regulators.
    I have to sign up as a professional investor for them to let me buy an agriculture ETF, reason being I think because its involving futures contracts and at their most harsh they didnt want me near to that.   If anything the nanny state is growing more restrictive seems like but thats for general public and I dont see why an ETF shouldnt exist even if not to all accounts trading.

[thecodebear]

I thought the objections to ETF were far more wide ranging, they would want all volume to be placed inside USA borders rather then its naturally globally distributed nature that is not easily sanctioned or monitored I guess is the problem.   Size does help but its not enough by itself is my guess for next 12 months, also volatility and constant rises does not represent stability exactly.   I could be wrong, certainly I should read more on this because it would be big news and Im not certain on current perceptions by regulators.
    I have to sign up as a professional investor for them to let me buy an agriculture ETF, reason being I think because its involving futures contracts and at their most harsh they didnt want me near to that.   If anything the nanny state is growing more restrictive seems like but thats for general public and I dont see why an ETF shouldnt exist even if not to all accounts trading.

Well I mean there are plenty of ETFs for international assets. So I don't think they want all volume to be inside the USA, that would mean they would need to restrict lots of stock investments that already exist. I believe it's more that they want a lot more liquidity on regulated exchanges (read: Wall St exchanges). They don't want Binance or some foreign unregulated crypto exchange to be the main driver of global volume. Basically it's liquidity in places they trust that they want before approving an ETF. Back in 2017 and 2018 that was almost nonexistent. Nowadays there is a lot more liquidity in such places, and in another year or two I think there will be enough BTC spot and derivatives volume on Wall St exchanges for the SEC to feel comfortable that some foreign unregulated crypto exchange can't control the price. And the fact that US companies and investment funds are buying into Bitcoin now certainly helps make the case as well, since US based investors will own a lot more of Bitcoin's total supply in the near future than they have ever owned before.

[el kaka22]

Well I mean there are plenty of ETFs for international assets. So I don't think they want all volume to be inside the USA, that would mean they would need to restrict lots of stock investments that already exist. I believe it's more that they want a lot more liquidity on regulated exchanges (read: Wall St exchanges). They don't want Binance or some foreign unregulated crypto exchange to be the main driver of global volume. Basically it's liquidity in places they trust that they want before approving an ETF. Back in 2017 and 2018 that was almost nonexistent. Nowadays there is a lot more liquidity in such places, and in another year or two I think there will be enough BTC spot and derivatives volume on Wall St exchanges for the SEC to feel comfortable that some foreign unregulated crypto exchange can't control the price. And the fact that US companies and investment funds are buying into Bitcoin now certainly helps make the case as well, since US based investors will own a lot more of Bitcoin's total supply in the near future than they have ever owned before.

I believe they wouldn't care about binance as long as binance gets involved with USA too and paid their taxes there. But the reality is that as long as you pay the right people, you can get anything you want done in real world. Look at the cruise ship business for example, they are all headquartered in other nations, Disney has their cruise ship listed at Bahamas for example, why?

Because, they want to get rid of paying high taxes on USA and paying a very tiny amount of tax in Bahamas is preferred, but they are still running their business for Americans, they still get their money from Americans, and when things got south due to covid, they asked money from American government as well.

So long story short, even though some things make more sense, if you can bribe the right people, binance could be a company owned by Chinese government or Russian government and you could still get all Americans money, as long as you bribe right people.

[OgNasty]

I believe they wouldn't care about binance as long as binance gets involved with USA too and paid their taxes there.

If the liquidity market gets big enough then thorn in their side exchanges like finance won't matter anyway.  They're concerned with manipulation, but once the whale that is Wall Street gets it's teeth sunk deep into the market, the global market manipulators won't have the power to make any meaningful moves.  Watching this market develop into a new asset class has been the opportunity of a generation and I think we've still got a little growth left in the bag.

[Lucius]

I have already expressed some of my opinions here, and I would not like to repeat myself too much. However, as far as the decision on this current request is concerned, I think I would say that the chances are in these proportions.

- 10% that the ETF will be approved at the first opinion issued by the SEC.
- 35% that this will happen at the end of the legal deadline, means in about 8 months.
- 55% that the SEC will reject the proposal this time as well, citing the same problems it has mentioned in the past.

In my opinion, it is more realistic that this will happen during 2022, but who knows if there are any changes around this when it comes to the SEC. The answer to that question will arrive in a few months.