SEC vs Bitcoin ETFs
One of these last days, Grayscale won in court the obligation of SEC to reanalyze their bitcoin ETF application, and, in case they continue to say no, as they did the first time, also offer a reason for it.
How does that sound? Bullish? Bearish?
Let's say this again. Grayscale had (and probably still has) a Bitcoin Fund called Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC). They wanted to transform this into a Bitcoin ETF (exchange traded fund), which is what every big player wants to have now.
So, what did the SEC say to their application? NO! Without any reasonable explanation.
Now, the judge(s) ordered SEC to at least give a reasonable explanation, if they are going to say no. They didn't order them to say Yes, and couldn't have, because it's not their place.
Knowing Gensler, and the policy of SEC under his reign, what do you think will the answer be this time? Yes? Get out of here! I'm inclined to believe they said NO without a reasonable explanation the first time suspecting this will likely go to court and they'll say NO again. 😀 Twice to the same bitcoin ETF. Gensler will probably be pleased by the well-executed plan if that's what it was. Or it was sheer arrogance and a dismissive attitude toward something that is related to crypto.
Now, I still wonder why are people hopeful about their rulings for the rest of the spot bitcoin ETF coming these days in the first appearance. Just because one of them is under the BlackRock name and they have an almost perfect score for approved ETFs?
That is true, but
- this is their first crypto ETF (I suppose)
- did Gensler actually approve anything related to crypto? I mean the SEC under him, not before him. I don't recall anything, but I might be wrong.
- if Gensler doesn't want problems with BlackRock for saying No, he can just delay their ETF for 240 days
Now, why do crypto people want to see spot crypto ETFs, in particular? Yeah... greed.
This comes from the assumption that such ETFs will have to buy and hold a considerable amount of the cryptocurrency they are based on, although we probably talk about fractional reserves since they come from the financial world and they like this kind of system. So, it's likely they will have much higher amounts of fiat from investors for their crypto balances (not a 1:1 balance in dollars). Others may be at 1:1, so we will see.
Anyway, let's assume they are approved and the ETFs buy and hold bitcoin, ethereum or whatever else will ETFs be based on, and prices will rise.
Which makes crypto individuals happy because bags pump.
The idea is these ETFs once they buy crypto they will never sell, most likely, especially for deflationary tokenomics.
They buy bitcoin or ethereum from the unsuspecting crypto individual who wants to mark profits, not understanding there will be fewer and fewer coins to buy lower and repeat the process.
This is where ETFs and institutional investors are bad for crypto and its initial ideals. They will slowly make the markets they enter elitist and inaccessible to small investors. Maybe these small investors want to invest in the ETFs instead? 🤨
Where ETFs are good is that they will probably be the ones bringing mass adoption. But it won't be mass adoption of crypto, it will be of crypto-based derivatives (like an ETF is). I guess it's better than nothing?
Posted Using LeoFinance Alpha
...and inaccessible to small investors.
Not at all, it will be accessible, but at a higher price. Those who enter the market first and who took the risk (BTC could have gone to 0) will be rewarded and whoever joins later the party has to pay the price. It is always like this. Why it should be different with Bitcoin? It has nothing to do with elites taking over. It is a fundamental law of markets and information. Just look at the AAPL stock, or TSLA, how they developed.
I get what you are saying. And early adopters of Bitcoin will have to gain from this if they sell. But once they sell, if they want to buy back in, they'll have to compete with institutional investors for the remaining bitcoin.
As for small investors (who already own bitcoin, that's who I was referring to), they have three things going on against themselves:
And the difference is, for a stock the decision can be taken to split or consolidate. For bitcoin, 21m (minus what's been lost) seems written in stone.
I understand Grey scale has been trading 40%? Under NAV, so could be a good Bitcoin play.
Maybe. I don't really follow. But keep in mind that if an ETF is approved, it will receive much more attention and funds compared to GBTC. It's true, that from approval to actually being functional it's a matter of many months probably.
Considering you can buy non custodial Bitcoin directly from most brokerages , I don't know why you need a Bitcoin ETF..
I think pension funds, assurance companies, etc. can invest in ETFs, but not in some other types of assets linked to Bitcoin and the rest.
That could open things up, although a financial advisory firm I spoke with a couple of weeks ago said Bitcoin is too risky and too early to invest. I guess that will be similar for many.
Probably that's how many institutional players think and advise. They want regulations first, most likely.
ETFs are just an easy way for people to go in. It's much easier for people to trust the stock brokerage companies and they are more reliable compared to a random crypto company. So I think the barrier to entry is a lot easier with ETFs. It's a valid thing to have but I don't think the SEC will accept the ETF application before Blackrock gets their approved.
I agree, they are much easier for mass adoption. I'm curious what SEC will do with the BlackRock application a few days later. My bet is they'll delay. They probably won't have the guts to say no. There is a small chance to say yes.
I think they will say no because it's the Biden administration and they don't like crypto.
Let's see. It's a huge financial player and politicians are politicians. They might not want to go against such a player if they have a way out.
Seems like this battle will still continue for long
I believe it will drag on until 2024. But we will see, maybe they approve BlackRock's ETF.
Hmmmmm This does not sound very promising does it @gadrian. It's too bad the SEC is so awful. I thought they fired or were going to fire Gensler. I wish they would. He's a control freak, Have a great rest of the week. Barb 😊⭐ !BBH !CTP #ctp
@gadrian! Your Content Is Awesome so I just sent 1 $BBH (Bitcoin Backed Hive) to your account on behalf of @adcreatordesign. (1/1)
Thank you @bbhbot 😊
They likely will after the elections if Biden doesn't win. But it doesn't mean the new one will be better, just different.
OK I sure hope so. I am not sure how it works but I don't think it is the president that controls everything. The House and Senate have more power and control more of Congress. I know this for a fact. The president does not have as much power as the House and the Senate. !BBH !CTP We'll see what happens and there is a lot of conflicting news everywhere.
No, he does not, but the SEC is one of the agencies part of the administration, and usually, from what I know without being an expert in American politics and administration, when the President changes, especially if it's from the other party, a big part of the administration changes. And those who have opposing views are the first to go.
There are a lot from the old admin in there still. It is hard to know exactly. But that is so much of the problem! It's pretty complicated here and many things are blocked by the House. So nothing gets done because of the continually blocking by the House. There are a lot of people that don't care that are still there.
Yeah, I guess politics works the same everywhere. The goal isn't to make things work, it is to block the opponent so you will be elected instead.
Yes It's time for politics to leave this world and a new way for everyone to live and new better way! !BBH !CTP
I just hope that there is something that can be done so as to eradicate anything that has to do with SEC
They are doing too much!
Normally, the SEC shouldn't be as visible. There are other US agencies and even the Fed who want some oversight over what's going on in crypto (isn't it funny how they all want to control crypto?). But SEC practically forced itself into various matters that weren't theirs to begin with. And that can only mean they were pushed by the only one they couldn't say no to: Gensler, their "chief".
Thank you for the sharing!
Sure, you're welcome.
Yes, no doubt better than nothing. Something is better than nothing. these ETF's will improve the market condition and turn the next bull run easily.
Not always. Depends on the thing, lol.
That is actually true. But wrong at the same time. We are so anxious for Wall Street and regulations to come save us from ourselves.... Not I, but crypto people, in general.
This is an angle that I didn't realize. I always thought big companies going into crypto will be good. But I guess there are a lot of disadvantages as well. Thanks for sharing this.
It is a "good" thing, if someone is not attached to what crypto was supposed to mean: an alternative. With them inside, it will be more of the same.
Congratulations @gadrian! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
It has been reported a while back that again they have delayed it and taken 45 days.
They delayed for one ETF, that's true. But 7 more are coming to their first ruling these days.
They don't want to make anything else that is above the market.
https://twitter.com/LovingGirlHive/status/1697565202538217815
https://twitter.com/lee19389/status/1697587138403979547
#hive #posh
I would say it is worse than nothing. If people don't own their keys and use their cryptocurrencies and DAPPs for real use cases, they are merely being a part of the old financial system with no real difference. Worst part is that with these institutional approval, "Fake Crypto" will pass as a part of real cryptosphere. This is why I have a preference for blockchain gaming. @splinterlands is offering a real use case. Users transact on chain and there is no alternative in the traditional system. I am honestly more interested in seeing gaming take off among everyday people.
I have the same opinion but wanted to not sound as pessimistic about what the future post-bitcoin ETFs will be, lol.
BTC ETFs will be approved at some point in USA. Approval could get delayed to 2024 and act as an extra catalyst to send the price up in a bull market. All I wish for is some time for cryptosphere to grow more decoupled from traditional financial system. We will have better chance in developing countries for this. More of this is exactly what we need: https://peakd.com/relevant/@marcelys1/eng-esp-i-pay-for-my-daily-purchases-with-hbd-cryptoadoption-in-sucre
I'm still wondering if they don't want to start to pump earlier, like next month. And finish it a few months before the halving, as it often happened, then go down until the halving and a little bit after that, and then start the second part of the bull market, the hype period.
Yep, I see posts like that with HBD payments in Sucre every day. Check my weekly roundup post from yesterday, they have records on almost all measured stats for economic activity in Hive Sucre last week.
I do think we are likely to see a sell the news event approaching BTC halving event and a crash afterwards. I have no idea when the run up would begin. Most likely the top will happen in late 2025.
I will give it a look.
https://leofinance.io/threads/vimukthi/re-vimukthi-3auwoxqza
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people ( vimukthi ) sharing the post on LeoThreads,LikeTu,dBuzz.