Winklevoss ETF update, what does this mean?

[Vessko]

This is correct, however investors in COIN are going to be effectively be investing in bitcoin as they will own a trust that owns bitcoin. Additionally the trust (and trustees) should be (IMO) considered to be trustworthy and it is possible to exchange shares in the trust for actual bitcoin (and vice versa)

Exactly. They will have to own the corresponding amount of BTC, or the ETF will fail to track the BTC price (minus expenses). The gold bugs keep harping that "GLD doesn't own any gold" but the fact that GLD has done such an admirable job of tracking the gold price is a proof that it indeed does own the gold it claims to own.

They can also make COIN even more transparent by publishing the public keys of their BTC accounts, so that anyone can verify on the blockchain that they indeed own the BTC they claim to own. (GLD publishes the registration numbers of the gold bars it owns, for instance, but this would be even better).

Will it make the price of BTC go up? Unlikely. However, it should increase the liquidity and might stabilize the price (i.e., reduce the volatility) a bit.

[gog1]

I don't think this is news at all.  Seems just some guy rehash some old story.

On the NASDAQ link, status is -> "Filed (7/1/2013)"; under the financials & filings tab, last filing is from Jul 1 of 2014.

[johnyj]

What if twins' coins were hacked? This is the single biggest risk that needs to be addressed  

[Meuh6879]

This is correct, however investors in COIN are going to be effectively be investing in bitcoin as they will own a trust that owns bitcoin. Additionally the trust (and trustees) should be (IMO) considered to be trustworthy and it is possible to exchange shares in the trust for actual bitcoin (and vice versa)

aha ...   ... so, in real world, you can exchange ETF gold bond for physical gold ?   At the same price ... ? (trap)

 

[DannyHamilton]

What if twins' coins were hacked? This is the single biggest risk that needs to be addressed  

I would hope that the SEC would require that they've acquired some sort of insurance against losses in order to get approval.  Anyone that considers investing in their ETF certainly should verify whether or not they are insured against such theft when determining their risk exposure.

[franky1]

I don't think this is news at all.  Seems just some guy rehash some old story.

On the NASDAQ link, status is -> "Filed (7/1/2013)"; under the financials & filings tab, last filing is from Jul 1 of 2014.

they refiled on the 30th of december 2014..
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=9924446

but still unsure when their nasdaq shares will actually be open to the public as thats the only question on people minds

[franky1]

This is correct, however investors in COIN are going to be effectively be investing in bitcoin as they will own a trust that owns bitcoin. Additionally the trust (and trustees) should be (IMO) considered to be trustworthy and it is possible to exchange shares in the trust for actual bitcoin (and vice versa)

aha ...   ... so, in real world, you can exchange ETF gold bond for physical gold ?   At the same price ... ? (trap)

 

how it works is that any WHALE investor can grab 10k of bitcoins and put them into the winklevoss trust as a basket. this basket then represents 50,000 shares (obviously a 0.2btc value per share).

the public can then buy those shares in any amount they want, small or large. and obviously sell shares on again.

anyone with 50,000 shares can ask to transfer the shares back to bitcoin and take that basket out of the trust.

what no on can do is own just 5 shares and request 1 bitcoin to be taken out of the basket. it has to be the 50,000 shares to be able to take a basket out of the trust

[CryptoTrout]

If I remember correctly the original plan was to have a share worth 1/5th of a bitcoin, but with that many shares they must be trying to make a share worth x millibits instead.  Smart move IMO.  Single Bitcoins costing several hundred dollars is a huge psychological barrier for a lot of tech inept investors. 

[coa032]

Is this good or bad?

[franky1]

If I remember correctly the original plan was to have a share worth 1/5th of a bitcoin, but with that many shares they must be trying to make a share worth x millibits instead.  Smart move IMO.  Single Bitcoins costing several hundred dollars is a huge psychological barrier for a lot of tech inept investors.  

its still a 5th of a bitcoin, they are releasing 1million shares..

if you do the maths, its the 200,000bitcoin that the winklevoss have on multiple times publicised that they have bought in 2012-2013. so i see nothing wrong.
these bitcoin/shares are cut down into 20 blocks of 10,000btc=50,000 shares which they call 'baskets'

other whales are free to purchase 10,000btc from wherever they like and then secure those into the winklevoss trust, to then increase the number of shares available for sell publicly

[KenJackson]

... investors in COIN are going to be effectively be investing in bitcoin as they will own a trust that owns bitcoin.

Exactly. They will have to own the corresponding amount of BTC, or the ETF will fail to track the BTC price (minus expenses). The gold bugs keep harping that "GLD doesn't own any gold" but the fact that GLD has done such an admirable job of tracking the gold price is a proof that it indeed does own the gold it claims to own.

Proof?  Oh?  The fact that GLD tracks gold doesn't prove it has any gold.  It only proves the manipulators are paying attention and staying active.

But the comparison of COIN to GLD is interesting.  If GLD can sell off the physical gold, as many believe they've done, what would keep COIN from secretly selling off some bitcoin from the fund?  I don't know enough about the blockchain  to know if clever deception can always be caught.

However, it should increase the liquidity and might stabilize the price (i.e., reduce the volatility) a bit.

Liquidity?  Interesting.  The FED's wrongful manipulation by "injecting liquidity" by printing up fresh dollars is one of the problems bitcoin might partially solve.  It seems almost dirty to talk about injecting liquidity in bitcoin.

[leopard2]

Is this good or bad?

It is good because they don't sell bitcoins, they sell shares. Basically this means they are offering shares to other investors. In other words, BTC are exchanged for fiat indirectly, when investors buy these shares.

In fact this is done all the time when funds that invest into real estate, gold et cetera, pull in money by selling shares to the public.

Hopefully this happens more often so that BTC becomes more mainstream.

[coa032]

Is this good or bad?

It is good because they don't sell bitcoins, they sell shares. Basically this means they are offering shares to other investors. In other words, BTC are exchanged for fiat indirectly, when investors buy these shares.

In fact this is done all the time when funds that invest into real estate, gold et cetera, pull in money by selling shares to the public.

Hopefully this happens more often so that BTC becomes more mainstream.

Yeah, that seems good. Thanks for explanation.

[CryptoTrout]

If I remember correctly the original plan was to have a share worth 1/5th of a bitcoin, but with that many shares they must be trying to make a share worth x millibits instead.  Smart move IMO.  Single Bitcoins costing several hundred dollars is a huge psychological barrier for a lot of tech inept investors.  

its still a 5th of a bitcoin, they are releasing 1million shares..

i too remembered reading 1 million shares but OPs article says 20.1 million shares

[mymenace]

If I remember correctly the original plan was to have a share worth 1/5th of a bitcoin, but with that many shares they must be trying to make a share worth x millibits instead.  Smart move IMO.  Single Bitcoins costing several hundred dollars is a huge psychological barrier for a lot of tech inept investors.  

its still a 5th of a bitcoin, they are releasing 1million shares..

i too remembered reading 1 million shares but OPs article says 20.1 million shares

not sure if this helps

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312514058712/d562329ds1a.htm

[CryptoTrout]

If I remember correctly the original plan was to have a share worth 1/5th of a bitcoin, but with that many shares they must be trying to make a share worth x millibits instead.  Smart move IMO.  Single Bitcoins costing several hundred dollars is a huge psychological barrier for a lot of tech inept investors.  

its still a 5th of a bitcoin, they are releasing 1million shares..

i too remembered reading 1 million shares but OPs article says 20.1 million shares

not sure if this helps

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312514058712/d562329ds1a.htm

ahh yes, that does help

The article is titled poorly, it says 20.1 million shares referring to the outdated evaluation of 1million shares @ $20.1 million last February.   

[gog1]

This thing has dragged on for over 1.5 years.......Not sure when it will ever see the light of day.

[QuestionAuthority]

This thing has dragged on for over 1.5 years.......Not sure when it will ever see the light of day.

You can't set up any ETF overnight. It's probably right on schedule.

[charlieSeen]

This thing has dragged on for over 1.5 years.......Not sure when it will ever see the light of day.

You can't set up any ETF overnight. It's probably right on schedule.

I remember reading several months ago that it was facing delays, so I would say it is probably somewhat behind schedule (especially considering this is the first news regarding this in months).

Since this is the first ETF they are starting it will take a little bit longer then what companies like Vanguard take to start a new ETF

[arklan]

always enjoy these threads. usually very little new info, but entertaining discussion aplenty.

if they ever do actually open this thing and sell shares publicly, it will be very interesting to watch. good for the price, bad? stable, crazy rocket? no idea. but it'll be a fun show.