Thank you for sharing, but the market doesn't work that way and I must equally say that just as I expected this to unfold after the US SEC's ETF approval, many other people knew that many other countries would follow, so it's not a big deal for the market anymore. Even Ethereum's ETF approval in the US will no more impact the crypto market the way the Bitcoin ETF filling and the drama surrounding it made the market behave at that time. That's the market psychology, it has priced in the ETF effect in the crypto space regardless of the country or asset showing interest.
That aside, the US market is a world-renowned market that can't be taken lightly, but unfortunately, the Australian market is not, which is why the effect will be minimal. The USD is being paired with all the assets of the world which makes it so important in the financial market in relation to the country itself (the US) that is strong in everything. By virtue, anything related to the US and USD is often important to the market. But a faint of such is applicable to a few top-world countries like the UK and EU, they have a sizable impact on the market as well, but so little compared to that of the US. This is even as they are more impactful in the market than Australia's effect. Are you getting the point?
This is based on my experience with the financial market and I majorly drew this from the reaction of the US news in the financial market and how all assets react with it compared to the news of other countries. In summary, I expect little or no effect on the crypto market due to the Australian ETF news.
When it is about market psychology and whether people try to anticipate gains and buy accordingly, then yes it probably doesn't have any further effects, or at least not as significant as some would wish them to be. But if those ETFs are regulated such that the BTC bought by the people have to be held in reserve by the ETF provider, then it would mean that more ETFs in more countries mean more on-ramps for more people. I am not sure how it works in most countries, whether ETF providers have to hold 100% of their portfolio exposure in reserve, but if it works that way then it would have an impact over time. It would apply to a lot of people who want the exposure, but feel not like managing a wallet.
Edit:
this article addresses what I was referring to. It would then indeed make a difference over time as companies approved to provide ETFs would have to accumulate real BTC. The good thing is that even countries that are not as trustworthy could in this case provide proof pretty easily that they actually do hold what they claim to be holding in reserve.
