ETA for the ETF? (and Gemini Exchange speculation)

[monsanto]

March 11 

[1714152497]

1714152497

[1714152497]

1714152497

[1714152497]

1714152497

[quake313]

March 11 

I'd be surprised if it gets approved. I think the most likely reason for it to be rejected is the probability of a contentious hard-fork resulting in competing chains. I really do not see how the SEC could justify approving any Bitcoin ETF with this possibility looming over the industry. It is too bad the DEVs and miners can not find some kind of compromise instead of going to war.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

March 11 

I'd be surprised if it gets approved. I think the most likely reason for it to be rejected is the probability of a contentious hard-fork resulting in competing chains. I really do not see how the SEC could justify approving any Bitcoin ETF with this possibility looming over the industry. It is too bad the DEVs and miners can not find some kind of compromise instead of going to war.

Agree, why can't they reach a compromise when what they're doing could be costing all of us thousands of dollars or even more. I was led to believe that the compromise was SegWit but we wait.......

[gentlemand]

I'd be surprised if it gets approved. I think the most likely reason for it to be rejected is the probability of a contentious hard-fork resulting in competing chains. I really do not see how the SEC could justify approving any Bitcoin ETF with this possibility looming over the industry. It is too bad the DEVs and miners can not find some kind of compromise instead of going to war.

For it to be disapproved it then has to be formally withdrawn I believe. And the SEC doesn't have to do anything to approve it. Ergo the longer it drags on the more likely approval is.

I can't imagine the SEC are drama queens who enjoy dragging things out.

I do agree with you about the possibility of forks and so on but some ETFs based on very shaky markets have been approved in the past without a whimper.

And don't forget that after the COIN ETF, there's another two applications to go. The SolidX one is arguably a better proposition too.

[monsanto]

I'd be surprised if it gets approved. I think the most likely reason for it to be rejected is the probability of a contentious hard-fork resulting in competing chains. I really do not see how the SEC could justify approving any Bitcoin ETF with this possibility looming over the industry. It is too bad the DEVs and miners can not find some kind of compromise instead of going to war.

For it to be disapproved it then has to be formally withdrawn I believe. And the SEC doesn't have to do anything to approve it. Ergo the longer it drags on the more likely approval is.

I can't imagine the SEC are drama queens who enjoy dragging things out.

I do agree with you about the possibility of forks and so on but some ETFs based on very shaky markets have been approved in the past without a whimper.

And don't forget that after the COIN ETF, there's another two applications to go. The SolidX one is arguably a better proposition too.

I'm curious what are some of the "very shaky markets" that have been approved?  What's the craziest, or most unexpected, thing that has received ETF approval before?

[Biodom]

I'm curious what are some of the "very shaky markets" that have been approved?  What's the craziest, or most unexpected, thing that has received ETF approval before?

Quite a few, "designed" to rob long investors over long term:

USO (just look at the graph)
DGL, which lagged the return by 2% annually instead of 0.75 predicted
UCO (went from $200 to $20 =90% loss while oil went from 100 to $50-50% loss)
All futures based ETFs are s-t designed to separate investors from their money.
If there ever was a case against WS financial advisers, these would fit quite nicely.

Plus, check this link:
http://www.cnbc.com/2012/06/27/herb-greenbergs-8-weirdest-etfs.html

[monsanto]

I'm curious what are some of the "very shaky markets" that have been approved?  What's the craziest, or most unexpected, thing that has received ETF approval before?

Quite a few, "designed" to rob long investors over long term:

USO (just look at the graph)
DGL, which lagged the return by 2% annually instead of 0.75 predicted
UCO (went from $200 to $20 =90% loss while oil went from 100 to $50-50% loss)
All futures based ETFs are s-t designed to separate investors from their money.
If there ever was a case against WS financial advisers, these would fit quite nicely.

Plus, check this link:
http://www.cnbc.com/2012/06/27/herb-greenbergs-8-weirdest-etfs.html

Interesting read.  Their strangeness would seemingly give more hope to a btc ETF.  On the other hand their weirdness seems to be mostly related to the financial machinations of their design, rather than the underlying assets (natural gas futures, highly volatile stocks, etc) that the ETF is based on.

[StarenseN]

#Bitcoin - $GBTC jacked up premium, because only US Bitcoin derivative compliant, is now falling hard pricing Bitcoin ETFs/derivatives?

source: https://twitter.com/Beetcoin/status/828880326877290496

[wacked]

This is what I see happening. With GBTC coming to closer to parity with NAV just as you said and with the upcoming decision from the Winklevoss ETF (COIN) and the SolidX Bitcoin Trust ETF (XBTC). Let's say they say yes, then you should see an influx of Bitcoin being purchased which should drive up the price of Bitcoin, which would in theory then drive up the price of GBTC. If they come back and say no, then in theory GBTC would once again go up in price and be further from NAV as there would not be a COIN or XBTC ETF available to participate in. Either way, unless BTC falls dramatically for some reason GBTC should only go up from here with both good or bad news from the upcoming SEC announcements.

[monsanto]

This is what I see happening. With GBTC coming to closer to parity with NAV just as you said and with the upcoming decision from the Winklevoss ETF (COIN) and the SolidX Bitcoin Trust ETF (XBTC). Let's say they say yes, then you should see an influx of Bitcoin being purchased which should drive up the price of Bitcoin, which would in theory then drive up the price of GBTC. If they come back and say no, then in theory GBTC would once again go up in price and be further from NAV as there would not be a COIN or XBTC ETF available to participate in. Either way, unless BTC falls dramatically for some reason GBTC should only go up from here with both good or bad news from the upcoming SEC announcements.

I think the GBTC might end up significantly lower though.  A rising bitcoin tide will raise all boats. but would it raise GBTC fast enough to offset that? I thought there were some big advantages for almost all investors in choosing an ETF over GBTC.  Is there any reason someone would prefer GBTC?  If not then the only reason anyone would buy it would be because it's cheap enough that going to the trouble of getting the actual BTC out would be worth it.

[gentlemand]

Why haven't many or any people picked up on the lack of demand for similar ish European initiatives likes the Swedish ETN and the Global Advisers one?

Are they fundamentally set up in a less sexy way, accessed in a completely different way or will the American versions be open to a different class of money? I haven't paid them enough attention to know. There's plenty of money in Europe too which has barely shown a peep of interest.

And here's some fun baseless speculation  as well.

[Biodom]

Why haven't many or any people picked up on the lack of demand for similar ish European initiatives likes the Swedish ETN and the Global Advisers one?

Are they fundamentally set up in a less sexy way, accessed in a completely different way or will the American versions be open to a different class of money? I haven't paid them enough attention to know. There's plenty of money in Europe too which has barely shown a peep of interest.

And here's some fun baseless speculation  as well.

img clipped

yeah, definitely less sexy.
I could not even figure out what the imgur image guy is saying as it has some double negatives.
Whatever, man, it is pretty much a consensus of at least 75 vs 25% that it would not be approved, so it it should have been priced in already.
One peculiar thing is that there are not one, but three ETF up for review.
It would be simpler to say to the other two: don't even bother with the motions.
Someone said that if it is going to be denied, we would know beforehand because they would allow Winkle's to withdraw the application.

[wacked]

Why haven't many or any people picked up on the lack of demand for similar ish European initiatives likes the Swedish ETN and the Global Advisers one?

Are they fundamentally set up in a less sexy way, accessed in a completely different way or will the American versions be open to a different class of money? I haven't paid them enough attention to know. There's plenty of money in Europe too which has barely shown a peep of interest.

And here's some fun baseless speculation  as well.

https://i.imgur.com/ve98cR9.png

There are some other ways to purchase Bitcoin through overseas market, but the US market and the availability of an ETF which brings in major investment funds and legitimacy is what would be a major bullish long term play on Bitcoin. I don't think a Swedish ETN (Bitcoin tracker one" (BTO) that's listed on NASDAQ/OMX in Stockholm), and the Global Advisors Investment Fund plc (GABI) which is listed on the Channel Islands Securities Exchange (CISE) says mainstream in any way shape or form.

[wacked]

This is what I see happening. With GBTC coming to closer to parity with NAV just as you said and with the upcoming decision from the Winklevoss ETF (COIN) and the SolidX Bitcoin Trust ETF (XBTC). Let's say they say yes, then you should see an influx of Bitcoin being purchased which should drive up the price of Bitcoin, which would in theory then drive up the price of GBTC. If they come back and say no, then in theory GBTC would once again go up in price and be further from NAV as there would not be a COIN or XBTC ETF available to participate in. Either way, unless BTC falls dramatically for some reason GBTC should only go up from here with both good or bad news from the upcoming SEC announcements.

I think the GBTC might end up significantly lower though.  A rising bitcoin tide will raise all boats. but would it raise GBTC fast enough to offset that? I thought there were some big advantages for almost all investors in choosing an ETF over GBTC.  Is there any reason someone would prefer GBTC?  If not then the only reason anyone would buy it would be because it's cheap enough that going to the trouble of getting the actual BTC out would be worth it.

An ETF is heads and shoulders better than an OTC investment. I'm speaking strictly about the price to NAV of GBTC. Prices will always fluctuate above and below NAV but will always come back to NAV when they swing to far left and right of the correct price. If or should I say when an ETF is approved more money will flow into the ETFs, but GBTC will benefit from the rising price of Bitcoin. The assumption of course if that the ETFs will immediately start taking in money from hedge funds and other investment firms looking to diversify for their portfolios and their investors. The best thing which has occurred recently has been for the recent major 3 Chinese exchanges to impose trading fees and no longer allowing leveraging. Even if the ETF is not approved, I don't think there will be a major swing and if it does occur this time around the gap would be quickly filled.

[Biodom]

They filed new S-1 amendments today.
Apparently, they will issue 10x more 'units', but each unit will correspond to 1/100 BTC, not 1/10.
In addition, they made side agreements with several high freq traders (HFT).
conclusion:

1. HFT will over-trade trade the ETF.
2. if approved, we will start at 1/100 of BTC per share.
Well, at $10 many people would consider it cheap enough to buy above 100 shares/'units'

[Denker]

They filed new S-1 amendments today.
Apparently, they will issue 10x more 'units', but each unit will correspond to 1/100 BTC, not 1/10.
In addition, they made side agreements with several high freq traders (HFT).
conclusion:

1. HFT will over-trade trade the ETF.
2. if approved, we will start at 1/100 of BTC per share.
Well, at $10 many people would consider it cheap enough to buy above 100 shares/'units'

Is this good news actually?
To me it looks like they're clearly in dialogue trying to satisfy everyone involved right?!
So there will be 10,000,000 shares instead of just 1,000,000.
Interesting.

[monsanto]

When I started this thread 2 years ago I didn't think it would take this long to find out 

Hard to believe they'd take this long if they were going to approve it.

[monsanto]

I was thinking the opposite.  Hard to imagine it taking this long with the backing it has if they were NOT going to approve it.

Yeah, there's a case to be made for that viewpoint too.  But why after 3 years would the sec wait to approve it with only a few days to go before the final deadline?  Seems like you'd wait to give the ETF people a chance to convince you it should be approved, rather than convince you it shouldn't be approved (because you're already leaning against it).  Still a chance of course.

[Arcteryx]

When I started this thread 2 years ago I didn't think it would take this long to find out 

Hard to believe they'd take this long if they were going to approve it.

That's what I thought when I had to do a look back at the date on this one.
It took exactly two years to see it come to this point and it still isn't even a sure thing it will go thru.
If it does fail to be approved does it have another chance to get it done or is this it?
Do or die time I think.

[gentlemand]

That's what I thought when I had to do a look back at the date on this one.
It took exactly two years to see it come to this point and it still isn't even a sure thing it will go thru.
If it does fail to be approved does it have another chance to get it done or is this it?
Do or die time I think.

If they detested the idea from day one then they wouldn't have dragged it out this long. Understandably they're going to have a lot of doubts. That's what all of these meetings and amendments have been addressing. The length of it all says to me that they've been giving it very serious consideration.

I assume the Winklevii would have to start over again and perhaps find themselves another exchange too. I can't see the point of reapplying in the near future if there is a rejection. They'll have done all they can with this one.

After this there's SolidX and GBTC. Perhaps they'll have a stronger case but I think it's Bitcoin itself that's going to scupper any applications and no application can address that.