Spot Bitcoin ETF Approval Odds Rise to 75% (Bloomberg)

[fillippone]

However, I notice most of these people are always against BTC when in the official and later support BTC after they leave office.

I think the point is that we usually forget that the institution they represent has deep ties with different stakeholders. Legitimate ( the public investor) and not-so-legitimate (sponsors in Washington). So they are like oil tanker ships: you cannot make them make a U-turn. You can only gently steer them so that they slowly turn without anyone noticing, independently of how much you want them to turn.


Maybe this is happening now, at the hands of Grayscale with their letter

Re: Grayscale Bitcoin Trust

But now that the Court of Appeals has spoken, there is no available rationale that would distinguish a bitcoin futures ETP from a spot bitcoin ETP under the legal analysis previously adopted by the Commission in rejecting spot bitcoin ETPs. This is because, as the Commission has consistently explained:
[A]n exchange that lists bitcoin-based ETPs can meet its obligations under Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5) by demonstrating that the exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying or reference bitcoin assets.7

[1715011597]

1715011597

[1715011597]

1715011597

[airbin]

For now, I don't see it as winners or losers, the situation moves as positions are achieved, at this time Grayscale consolidates positions, but the regulations (SEC) now simply rethink the new battlefield.

[suzanne5223]

However, I notice most of these people are always against BTC when in the official and later support BTC after they leave office.

I think the point is that we usually forget that the institution they represent has deep ties with different stakeholders. Legitimate ( the public investor) and not-so-legitimate (sponsors in Washington). So they are like oil tanker ships: you cannot make them make a U-turn. You can only gently steer them so that they slowly turn without anyone noticing, independently of how much you want them to turn.

The possible shady mode of operation of the institution in the market is the reason why I am not totally happy about the institution's interest in the BTC market because it's something they always do and will continue to do.

Maybe this is happening now, at the hands of Grayscale with their letter

Re: Grayscale Bitcoin Trust

According to what I read in the Grayscale letter that's indeed what's happening and people need to face the fact that it is early for the SEC to approve BTC ETF.

[DapanasFruit]

With all the excitement surrounding the "coming" approval of an ETF, I am hoping that one can be approved by SEC this year so we can see once and for all whether such a platform will be doing many benefits for Bitcoin or will it making things withered or should we say controlled? I will not be speculating anything but I am just hoping for the best. SEC has become the big enemy of the cryptocurrency sector and it is doing all it can to put all the plugs necessary for the industry to grow all while pretending it is doing its regulatory job. Right now, only a court could prod it to do its job and I am happy to see Grayscale taking the challenge though it would be so nice to see SEC really doing its job and not be an enemy to the whole crypto industry.

[YUriy1991]

It's a bit dramatic and a strong push and pull of course. Well, even though many people are waiting for this, if it's delayed again, I think the authorities in this case will issue final and no longer confusing directions because ETF products are currently probably very popular for Novice investors and Anyone will be interested in buying Bitcoin because they charge low fees and usually have low volatility.

[pawel7777]

It's a bit dramatic and a strong push and pull of course. Well, even though many people are waiting for this, if it's delayed again, I think the authorities in this case will issue final and no longer confusing directions because ETF products are currently probably very popular for Novice investors and Anyone will be interested in buying Bitcoin because they charge low fees and usually have low volatility.

SEC cannot delay their decision forever, they're bounded by set timeframes after all. I think you're a bit too optimistic by expecting them to finally come up with clear guidance. They've proven repeatedly that they don't care about producing coherent rules when it comes to crypto.
But even SEC's Gary Gensler admitted multiple times that Bitcoin does not fall under the definition of security, so I don't think they'll have any solid grounds to decline ETF applications. They could come up with some petty reasons and make applicants jump through extra hoops, but will have to approve them eventually.

[fillippone]

According to Balchunas, ETF Spot approval would flood the market with 150 Billions:

$150,000,000,000 Coming to Bitcoin Market Once BlackRock BTC ETF Gets Approved, Predicts Bloomberg Analyst

Two is if you take advisors and wealth managers, they have $30 trillion that they run for the rich boomers of America basically. If only 0.5% of that comes over, that is $150 billion.”

I think that 0.5% is quite defensive as an estimate. Probably, this doesn't consider other incoming flows different than ETF.

Currently, market cap is 500B.

[MusaMohamed]

According to Balchunas, ETF Spot approval would flood the market with 150 Billions:

$150,000,000,000 Coming to Bitcoin Market Once BlackRock BTC ETF Gets Approved, Predicts Bloomberg Analyst

Two is if you take advisors and wealth managers, they have $30 trillion that they run for the rich boomers of America basically. If only 0.5% of that comes over, that is $150 billion.”

I think that 0.5% is quite defensive as an estimate. Probably, this doesn't consider other incoming flows different than ETF.

Currently, market cap is 500B.

Even it is an estimate, even it is over estimate, $150B compares to $500B is 30% that is a big contribution as new capital to a Bitcoin market cap.

However, it is only math because in Bitcoin market that is similar to other markets in aspect of market psychological cycles. When people are FOMO, they can over react positively and the impacts on this market when $150B flours into Bitcoin market would be bigger than 30% from the math.

[pawel7777]

Even it is an estimate, even it is over estimate, $150B compares to $500B is 30% that is a big contribution as new capital to a Bitcoin market cap.

However, it is only math because in Bitcoin market that is similar to other markets in aspect of market psychological cycles. When people are FOMO, they can over react positively and the impacts on this market when $150B flours into Bitcoin market would be bigger than 30% from the math.

The assumption that extra demand of 30% of the current market cap (which does not even represent the actual money that has been put in Bitcoin) will convert to 30% increase in the price doesn't have much to do with math. Things are more complex than that. In reality, much smaller (extra) demand could drive the price up by way more than 30%. First of all, we need to be looking at the number of bitcoins available for sale, which is much smaller than the total number of bitcoins in existence. But there are other factors as well, including the mood of the sellers (i.e. will they be willing to sell at the current price) or the timing (i.e. $150b dumped on market in a short period of time would have a much greater effect than if it's spread over a longer period).

[MusaMohamed]

The assumption that extra demand of 30% of the current market cap (which does not even represent the actual money that has been put in Bitcoin) will convert to 30% increase in the price doesn't have much to do with math.

I did not say all those capital will be spent in Bitcoin and not say if 30% more capital pours in to Bitcoin market, Bitcoin price will increase 30%. I believe effects would be bigger than 30% and I mentioned it too. We can not estimate FOMO effects correctly as well as how far forced liquidations will lift price up. This market does not work only with Supply and Demand Principle but is more affected by forced liquidations.

Supply can be the same or become smaller when price moves up whilst demand will be bigger when new 30% capital pours into the market. Then it will be mutually affected by exchange forced liquidations.

[pawel7777]

I did not say all those capital will be spent in Bitcoin and not say if 30% more capital pours in to Bitcoin market, Bitcoin price will increase 30%. I believe effects would be bigger than 30% and I mentioned it too. We can not estimate FOMO effects correctly as well as how far forced liquidations will lift price up. This market does not work only with Supply and Demand Principle but is more affected by forced liquidations.

I know you didn't, but it seemed like you hinted that by math (not in reality) we should be expecting 30%. But maybe I just read it wrong.

Anyhow, if the rumours of BlackRock quietly buying bitcoins are true, some of the ETF-related cash flow could already be priced in. If the ETF gets approved and the demand and price increase, BlackRock will be unloading on their own investors rather than buying on the market on their behalf.

[fillippone]

Anyhow, if the rumours of BlackRock quietly buying bitcoins are true, some of the ETF-related cash flow could already be priced in.

I don't think it is so.
Blackrock doesn't need BTC to profit on the markets. They already own a large chunk of the equity market.
Secondly, they don't want to have a directional market risk on Bitcoin (the one that usually triggers the stop ): they are hedgers, not traders.
They would make enough profit from management fees, without putting in place risky positions on the market).

[MusaMohamed]

I know you didn't, but it seemed like you hinted that by math (not in reality) we should be expecting 30%. But maybe I just read it wrong.

I know the math is wrong because it does not include more factors to have a better math. Even with more factors if we have them and finally get a better math, there are many factors on market we can not know. Psychological effects usually are bigger than math based on factors we know. I made the simple math because many newbies will have simple thinking like that.

I don't think it is so.
Blackrock doesn't need BTC to profit on the markets. They already own a large chunk of the equity market.
Secondly, they don't want to have a directional market risk on Bitcoin (the one that usually triggers the stop ): they are hedgers, not traders.
They would make enough profit from management fees, without putting in place risky positions on the market).

BlackRock is a big corporate company and they create a lot of income from cash management.

I download their report for 2022 full-year report  and Q2 2023 report that show how big their corporate company is and how big their profit from management fee.

You are right with their big size, they don't have to take risk. Management safely and get income from management fee is enough for them.

Small investors take high risk because they want to get rich quickly but institutional investors are more keen on low percent of profit but aim at safety for their capital first.

[pawel7777]

I don't think it is so.
Blackrock doesn't need BTC to profit on the markets. They already own a large chunk of the equity market.
Secondly, they don't want to have a directional market risk on Bitcoin (the one that usually triggers the stop ): they are hedgers, not traders.
They would make enough profit from management fees, without putting in place risky positions on the market).

That's likely true, but if they had insider information that their ETF would get approved, and since we almost certainly know that it would have a positive impact on BTC price, then there's not much risk on their side. Also considering that the entire Bitcoin involvement is just a tiny fraction of their operations.

I download their report for 2022 full-year report  and Q2 2023 report that show how big their corporate company is and how big their profit from management fee.

$1.4 billion of net profit after tax just for the last 3 months and over $9 trillion of average assets under management is truly impressive. You don't get bigger than that.