[HN Gopher] Spot Bitcoin ETF receives official approval from the...
___________________________________________________________________
Spot Bitcoin ETF receives official approval from the SEC
Author : talboren
Score : 88 points
Date : 2024-01-10 21:16 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cointelegraph.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (cointelegraph.com)
| jcuenod wrote:
| For real this time?
| awfml wrote:
| for real this time (https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-
| statement-spot-bi...)
| wslh wrote:
| Actual document:
| https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/nysearca/2024/34-99306.p...
| and archived one, just in case you receive 404:
| https://twitter.com/coinfabrik/status/1745192170942800341
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Also got 404, so thought it was fake..
| moose_man wrote:
| This is so sad. Crypto (including Bitcoin) serves as a money
| funnel while takes from economically insecure middle class retail
| investors and pours it into the pockets of the tremendously
| wealthy.
| mmvvddhh wrote:
| Yeah just like USD.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Not exactly the same. Fiat currency like the USD redistribute
| a lot of wealth from users into the pockets of the central
| bank/government through unlimited base inflation, which they
| control. Bitcoin does not have that, its inflation rate is
| fixed by the protocol and only ever falling. In April this
| year it will fall to 0.875%.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Not sure I'd call that an inflation rate as it doesn't
| factor in any baskets of goods and services.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Monetary inflation (i.e. in it's purest form increasing
| the monetary base by "printing" more) is not necessarily
| the same as what you probably mean by 'inflation rate'.
| You're probably talking about price inflation, using CPI.
| Those are linked but not the same.
|
| Bitcoin "prints" around 1.74% currently and it's going to
| drop below 1% in April. The USD, although one of the more
| stable fiat currencies, is worlds apart from that.
| Looking at official Fed data you can see the base has
| been inflated by massive amounts just in the past 3 years
| alone! An increase of way over 60%!
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGMBASE
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Exactly. "Inflation rate" usually denotes price inflation
| not change in monetary base or similar measures. More
| money in circulation can mean price inflation, but it
| doesn't need to.
| maxioatic wrote:
| Haven't heard this take before. What are your thoughts on high
| frequency trading shops and the regular stock market?
| ESTheComposer wrote:
| This guy is in every single crypto thread here spouting anti
| crypto nonsense. Don't expect an actual in depth take.
| moose_man wrote:
| I think they suck just like crypto, these are all mechanisms
| rigging the economy in favor of the already wealthy. If we
| don't unrig it we will eventually get civil war. Popular
| immiseration eventually leads to upheaval.
|
| Checkout the book - End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and
| the Path of Political Disintegration by Peter Turchin
| reisse wrote:
| Already wealthy? I don't think you know the scene well. HFT
| probably pulled more physics and math grads out of poverty
| than any other field.
| treyd wrote:
| It's also pulled those grads _away_ from more typical
| jobs they 'd have building useful things and actually
| producing new real-world value.
| mratsim wrote:
| Real world value for which they'll be paid post-doc/PhD
| wages and be carrying student debt like Sisyphus carries
| his boulder for all eternity.
| reisse wrote:
| I don't really want to start a debate on how HFT produces
| real-world value, but just consider that if these things
| you talk about are really useful and valuable, they might
| also provide competitive salaries to attract people?
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Yes, they might create more non-monetary value elsewhere,
| but that trades off against what non-monetary value the
| money they make creates now.
| bob_malrey wrote:
| At least with stocks you actually own cash flows. Cryptos
| produce nothing.
| rvz wrote:
| Crypto is one of many. Just like SPACs, crowdfunding and the
| entire VC landscape are always finding millions of ways to dump
| on retail after they made their 100x on unprofitable startups
| (90% of them have failed) founded by their friends racing to
| the IPO finishing line.
|
| This is why they have to continuously raise money an
| breathlessly celebrate it on social media and even on this site
| as if "raising capital" into the Series H is a good thing.
|
| Sorry to disappoint you but it isn't going to stop.
| factorialboy wrote:
| No no, you just described inflation and taxes.
| psychlops wrote:
| How does bitcoin "take" money from anybody? How would you
| classify an economically insecure investor? If they are
| economically insecure, where do they get the money to invest?
|
| Food for thought, when there is currency inflation where do you
| suppose all the wealth goes and who is it taken from? Here I
| think we can use the word "take".
| wmf wrote:
| A lot of people buy in at the top, expecting "generational
| wealth", then sell at the bottom, losing 60% or more.
|
| US dollar inflation has never been 60% per year AFAIK.
| schemescape wrote:
| In the hypothetical case that a Bitcoin ETF gets hacked and its
| wallet(s) emptied, what happens? Is it any different from, say, a
| gold ETF having its physical gold stolen?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| this has been a major part of the application revisions, you'll
| have to read each ETF before you purchase, or, you know,
| contact a financial advisor before every trade lol
| bnchrch wrote:
| You would hope they have good security practises + purchase
| insurance.
|
| But I have a feeling like it will take an incident like the one
| you describe to happen first before that becomes mandatory.
| postcynical wrote:
| and what would happen during/after a fork?
| ur-whale wrote:
| > and what would happen during a fork?
|
| Now, _that_ is a very interesting question.
|
| If said ETF did their homework properly, their handling of a
| fork should be described in detail in their prospectus.
|
| Not that I would ever buy a BTC ETF since it precisely
| negates what I believe Bitcoin to be useful for, but if I had
| to, I'd pick the one that would convert the forked coins back
| to BTC immediately after the fork.
|
| If enough ETFs actually promise to apply this policy in their
| statutes, that would make it quite a hump to get over for a
| would-be forker, knowing the immediate price hit the forked
| coin would take because of the ETF immediately dumping it.
| postcynical wrote:
| > Not that I would ever buy a BTC ETF since it precisely
| negates what I believe Bitcoin to be useful for, but if I
| had to, I'd pick the one that would convert the forked
| coins back to BTC immediately after the fork.
|
| Would it actually be clear which fork is the winning one?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Wow, this actually is a critical point, and I'm surprised
| at what the outcome is. Essentially, it seems to me that
| these ETFs are saying they will abandon any rights to
| forked coins. That seems insane to me, though, so perhaps
| I'm misunderstanding? I mean, if there is a hard fork, some
| percentage of total value will go with one chain and some
| percentage to the other - that's basically exactly what
| happened with the Bitcoin Cash fork - so how can the ETFs
| just say they'll abandon coins in the forked chain.
|
| My understanding taken from:
|
| 1. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-etf-
| hurdles%3A-cash-... "In the event of a fork diverting from
| the main chain, trusts associated with the ETFs are
| expected to relinquish any entitlements."
|
| 2. Grayscale prospectus, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar
| /data/1588489/000119312524...:
|
| > Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any forks
| or airdrops.
|
| > The Bitcoin Network operates using open-source protocols,
| meaning that any user can download the software, modify it
| and then propose that the users and miners of Bitcoin adopt
| the modification. When a modification is introduced and a
| substantial majority of users and miners' consent to the
| modification, the change is implemented and the network
| remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial
| majority of users and miners' consent to the proposed
| modification, and the modification is not compatible with
| the software prior to its modification, the consequence
| would be what is known as a "hard fork" of the Bitcoin
| Network, with one group running the pre-modified software
| and the other running the modified software. The effect of
| such a fork would be the existence of two versions of
| Bitcoin running in parallel, yet lacking
| interchangeability. In addition to forks, a digital asset
| may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an
| "airdrop." In an airdrop, the promotors of a new digital
| asset announce to holders of another digital asset that
| such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of
| the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they
| hold such other digital asset. We refer to the right to
| receive any benefits arising from a fork, airdrop of
| similar event as an "Incidental Right" and any such virtual
| currency acquired through an Incidental Right as "IR
| Virtual Currency."
|
| > With respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the
| Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the
| Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency associated
| with such event. As such, shareholders will not receive the
| benefits of any forks, and the Trust is not able to
| participate in any airdrop.
|
| > In the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust's
| policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual
| Currency, an application would need to be filed with the
| SEC by NYSE Arca seeking approval to amend its listing
| rules to permit the Trust to distribute the Incidental
| Rights or IR Virtual Currency in-kind to an agent of the
| shareholders for resale by such agent. However, there can
| be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would
| make such a decision, or when NYSE Arca will seek or obtain
| this approval, if at all.
|
| > Even if such regulatory approval is sought and obtained,
| shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the
| Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an
| airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a
| fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. Any inability
| to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop
| could adversely affect the value of the Shares.
| wmf wrote:
| Here's a theory: If they promise to capture value of
| forks then anyone can fork Bitcoin (it's pretty easy to
| do) and force the custody providers to do a bunch of work
| to support that fork. By preemptively disclaiming all
| forks, they also reduce the motivation to fork.
| (Stablecoins have the same effect on Ethereum.)
|
| Here's a list of 45(!) Bitcoin forks and 11 airdrops that
| have happened so far: https://forkdrop.io/how-many-
| bitcoin-forks-are-there
| DANmode wrote:
| You think the political willpower across all superpowers
| would be substantial enough to allow for "error correction"
| forking (nicest way to put this), to the benefit of
| _individual_ superpowers who made an error like that?
|
| This seems unlikely.
| DANmode wrote:
| Oh, I think I misunderstood your comment.
|
| Many TradFi custodians ignore/do not support (publicly) forks
| of client assets held, sometimes just until they reach some
| arbitrary level of social traction.
| wmf wrote:
| I will note that the ETFs are using Coinbase, Gemini, and
| Fidelity for custody. These companies have been providing
| Bitcoin custody for years without being hacked AFAIK.
| miohtama wrote:
| The Trust holding the asset would have frauded its customers
| (shareholders) and could be sued.
|
| Ther Trust itself would be a target of cyber crime and could
| try to pursue the thieves through Computer Abuce Act(s) around
| the world.
|
| These two happen independently of each other.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| all it took was a judge declaring the SEC's prior view toward
| bitcoin ETFs to be arbitrary and capricious
|
| and the SEC thinking about appealing but realizing this
| absolutely based SCOTUS would delete the SEC like Thanos if they
| ever get taken beyond circuit appeals court by the private sector
|
| markets win
| ur-whale wrote:
| based -> biased ?
|
| [EDIT]: looks like no, saying "a based judge" actually has
| meaning in English.
| wmf wrote:
| No https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=based
| miohtama wrote:
| No, it's slang. (used to express approval
| or respect, especially in response to a social media post):
| Based. At least somebody shows some spine on this forum.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| The Supreme Court heard arguments in November on the
| constitutionality of the SEC.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| The death of crypto was written endlessly on HN. The investor
| activity is much more bullish over last 6 months. I think the
| only hot VC right now in all of tech is AI and blockchain.
|
| Now a lot of people here will be investing in Bitcoin without
| even knowing it, as their passive fund investments begin
| accumulating. The sweet victory against the no coiners.
| ESTheComposer wrote:
| People in HN are in a massive bubble; you see it with other
| topics too. It's nice to look here for some tech sentiment and
| interesting article sometimes, but for most cutting edge stuff
| this forum is always full of naysayers.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| I've learnt not to talk about crypto or computer graphics
| (?!) here, so much vitriol.
| miohtama wrote:
| A lot of people in software industry have tendency to
| reflexive negativity*, as people selected to become software
| developer often have a tendency to seeing things in their own
| limited scope, and not the in the scope of others.
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reflexive-negativity-jess-
| mac...
| rvz wrote:
| Well, HN is so deep in their own reality distortion bubble
| that they are still not noticing that "AGI" is actually about
| lining some-else's pockets over a sci-fi dream sold to them
| through hype after trampling over laws and regulations.
|
| Those on HN who believed that such a complete ban on crypto
| was feasible were always delusional. The cat is out of the
| bag for both AI and crypto, but in the end, the legal system
| always gets them to pay up and the regulators for both AI or
| crypto will get them as well.
|
| No escaping that.
| dgreensp wrote:
| People who aren't in the tech/VC or crypto echo chambers can
| see that it's (still) overhyped and mostly scams. They don't
| really care or have more positive sentiment than HN.
| ESTheComposer wrote:
| Ok and from my anecdotal experience the opposite is true,
| so I guess we're at a crossroads here. Either way doesn't
| have bearing on how HN views crypto
| npoc wrote:
| There's a fair amount of ill-placed arrogance. It seems that
| the majority on this board confidently and incorrectly
| believe that they know all there really is to know about
| bitcoin. Essentially that it's a scam that wastes energy.
|
| If you try to help them understand, you're generally attacked
| as if you are shill, and then they continue along in their
| ignorant bubble. It's a shame, but their attitude isn't
| conducive to me losing any sleep.
|
| You buy bitcoin at the price you deserve.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Why would it be in passive funds or do mean it will become part
| of the asset allocation of pension funds and the like?
| moose_man wrote:
| Yeah, crypto people want to recreate the current system but
| with themselves in charge. It's not about decentralization.
| They want to carbon copy the current economy but putting a
| small number of holders to lord over the "nocominers"
| rurp wrote:
| So "winning" for Bitcoin has now come to mean becoming a boring
| traditional security that doesn't do much of anything else?
| That's awfully different from what 99.9% of Bitcoin optimists
| have spent years claiming the future would be.
|
| Authorizing Bitcoin ETFs does absolutely nothing to
| revolutionize payments or finance, and is the only positive
| crypto story I have seen in many months.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| You can't win with HN no coiners. The ETF doesn't prevent all
| the decentralized benefits. It just adds regulatory
| legitimacy from the world's most important financial
| regulator. It also helps regular people put their retirement
| money in, which is great
| iamthirsty wrote:
| > The ETF doesn't prevent all the decentralized benefits.
|
| OP's point wasn't about preventing decentralized benefits,
| I believe they were saying the ETFs don't _help_ them in
| any way.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| A Bitcoin ETF is literally the antithesis of the crypto
| project. It's a centralised, highly regulated trad-fi product.
|
| Also, no one is going to end up accidentally investing in
| crypto, these ETFs are going to be super niche products.
| koolba wrote:
| It's also the only way for most to get crypto exposure in an
| IRA. Avoiding the insanity that is crypto tax filings may be
| worth the risks and fees.
| Alupis wrote:
| I think this is the huge part - letting retirement accounts
| dabble in crypto.
|
| For those young enough (or foolish enough) to operate a
| high-risk/high-growth retirement portfolio, holding crypto
| can be a large boon. Just the past 365 days of BTC has 162%
| increase in value.
| wmf wrote:
| Buying and holding crypto isn't that complex for tax
| purposes (although it could still be easier). The craziness
| comes in when people get into DeFi but ETFs don't let you
| do that anyway.
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| Satoshi's dream of a decentralised ledger finally reaches its
| ultimate form of a centralised list maintained by the DTC.
| Rejoice!
| ur-whale wrote:
| While I agree with the sentiment, please remember that actually
| buying BTC directly and doing self-custody is still an option.
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| So much more hassle though. Nobody's going to bother with
| that now - what's the point?
| treyd wrote:
| UX with hardware wallets (which you can get for like $60)
| is pretty decent these days and it eliminates a lot of
| stress in the workflows you typically use. There's still a
| huge room for improvement with seedphrase backup and
| "social recovery", but it's easier now than it's been in
| the past.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| I love this scenario.
|
| "Why is Bitcoin a great asset?"
|
| "Because its the future of currency! Its great and everyone
| will use it!"
|
| "Then why don't you just get it directly?"
|
| "Uh, its too much of a hassle. For me. A finance worker."
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Nobody's going to bother with that now - what's the
| point?
|
| This is actually a great comment that I think applies well
| to the crypto world as a whole, even if that wasn't your
| original intent.
| fancyfredbot wrote:
| I will own up to trolling slightly to draw attention to
| the fact that exhanging bitcoin as a digital currency is
| not something which would occur to most people who own
| it. The only thing most people will do with their bitcoin
| is exchange it for fiat.
| bob_malrey wrote:
| But what's the point of Bitcoin then? They might as well
| put anything in these ETFs and it'd be the same thing then:
| the flat rocks in my garden are limited in number and very
| scarce, wanna put some in an etf?
| rkagerer wrote:
| Maybe, but my rocks are better, faster, and more
| scalable!
|
| Frankly we could probably get our rock ETF's approved
| more quickly. Regardless of how you feel about Bitcoin,
| it's not (or shouldn't be) the SEC's place to play nanny
| and dictate the particular assets/commodities/etc. in
| which you're allowed to invest your money. Incidentally
| even one of SEC commissioners agrees
| https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-spot-
| bit...
| dovakin wrote:
| Well as a matter of fact btc is none of these things
| compared to any other crypto, which are themselves not
| particularly any of these things.
|
| But I agree with the fact it's not the SEC's role to tell
| us the merit of btc. I do have some worries on the Tether
| scam still going on for example though, which has been
| manipulating BTC for years.
| rkagerer wrote:
| It's not really that hard, and the tools are continually
| evolving to be more user friendly (e.g. Last year Trezor
| added hardware support to simplify Shamir backup).
|
| Of course the ability to hit "buy now" in the same
| marketplace you manage all your other investments is pretty
| low friction and I'm sure this decision will bring fresh
| investment out of the woodwork.
| houseatrielah wrote:
| Save approx. 1% on fees annually is the point.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| The mob always wins in the end, but I never understood why
| many on HN have been so cynical about Bitcoin. At least
| Satoshi tried, whoever they were. They gave a gift to the
| world, but it sadly got co-opted and taken over first by
| small-time grifters and now by the big boys at Wall Street.
| In hindsight it was probably bound to happen, because money
| buys influence and a casual decentralized group of coders can
| never win against banks and governments.
|
| Anyway, digital gold is still better than nothing. It's still
| an innovation as a store of value, even if the payments idea
| is basically history (some Bitcoin maxis just don't
| understand that yet). Also Bitcoin has inspired a whole
| ecosystem of other blockchains. If you want the original
| concept of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, Monero is
| probably one of the best to check out currently. Governments
| are btw currently going after Monero, because unlike the
| common myth about Bitcoin, it actually enables anonymous
| payments - just like cash. And so of course we can't have
| that. Multiple exchanges already announced they were forced
| to delist XMR.
| maxioatic wrote:
| But then I have to pay taxes on it.
|
| Time to full send my retirement accounts into these ETFs so I
| can retire early. /s
|
| Actually though I might consider allocating a tiny percentage
| (1-3%) to these. Seems like fairly low risk with enough
| upside, but who knows.
| factorialboy wrote:
| Sarcasm aside, this is the ultimate endorsement.
|
| The likes of Blackrock could use BTC as a hedge if the Feds
| keep on printing USD under political pressure.
| bob_malrey wrote:
| How would that be better than holding gold? Fees for large
| transactions of btc are getting higher than the cost of
| physically moving gold anyway, and the chances to lose it or
| get it stolen are higher.
| shawabawa3 wrote:
| Fees for storing and moving bitcoin are absolutely not
| approaching the costs for gold
|
| Try moving $10M of gold from one end of the world to
| another for under $100
| nikolay wrote:
| Well, how about trying to move $200 in Bitcoin - it's the
| most expensive funds transfer. You cannot "move" $50 as
| it's cost-prohibitive!
| mratsim wrote:
| Try moving $50 in a private bank. Fees for stocks start
| at $200.
| nikolay wrote:
| I do it every week. It's free (Zell), or it's incredibly
| cheap. It has predictable cost and timeframe, too, unlike
| Bitcoin, with no customer service and no way to remediate
| errors and fraud! So, even if I pay to the banks, it
| covers people and insurance - unlike with Bitcoin, which
| just burns fossil fuels so that Chinese miners can get
| richer and richer stealing subsidized electricity!
| michaelt wrote:
| Simply divide your BTC into paper wallets in a variety of
| sizes from $5 to $100, and when you need to make a
| transaction, mail the right combination of wallets to the
| person you want to pay.
|
| /s
| nikolay wrote:
| Mailing costs money, too; it's slow, and there's no proof
| that I've made the transfer. Plus, if that person wants
| to consolidate their funds, they will have to pay the
| crazy costs still, i.e. they will put it into their
| pricing model! How about comparing apples to apples?!
| npoc wrote:
| The bitcoin network is best suited for storing and moving
| large amounts of monetary energy. Compared to any other
| monetary system, it does this the most efficiently (i.e.
| with the least amount of energy loss), both during
| storage and during transfer.
|
| Note that the transfer of monetary value/energy is final
| settlement (i.e. it's not just an IOU that will be
| settled at later date, like most bank payments).
|
| Ultimately the base layer network will be used for
| settlement between banks, national reserve asset/currency
| etc. and faster, cheaper payment rails will be built on
| top of it (e.g. the Lightning Network)
| dovakin wrote:
| The Lightning Network isn't working as intended and the
| devs have basically admitted it's never going to though.
| I don't think blockchain as it is built for the btc
| network is as scalable as you think it can be.
| yreg wrote:
| Probably not a worry for Blackrock.
| treyd wrote:
| "Large" here meaning physically large in terms of bytes,
| it's irrespective of the _amount_ transferred in the tx. If
| you have high volume in a relatively low number of
| transactions and are relatively good with input /output
| hygiene then the actual fees paid _probably_ won 't break
| the bank.
| factorialboy wrote:
| Strawman. I never claimed Bitcoin is the only hedge.
| Certainly gold has it s place.
|
| Lightning network fees are negligible. So that argument
| doesn't hold either.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Lighting network isn't really bitcoin though. More like
| an optional bolt on peripheral network with it's own set
| of issues.
| nullc wrote:
| Gold has an inferior tax treatment.
|
| Gold has considerable storage/security costs compared to
| Bitcoin.
|
| Gold has considerable fake risks/costs compared to Bitcoin.
|
| The supply of gold is continually inflated by mining (also
| true for Bitcoin though the mining rate in bitcoin
| decreases over time).
| houseatrielah wrote:
| World gold supply inflates at 2% per year due to mining.
| That's an key point of the Stock2Flow model.
| nikolay wrote:
| Nobody uses Bitcoin. It's not an alternative to fiat.
| nullc wrote:
| Some people own bitcoin only because they expect its value to
| increase due to demand from others. There is nothing inherently
| invalid about this-- speculation occurs in all kinds of
| valuable assets and it serves the public good of creating a
| demand buffer.
|
| For those parties, bitcoin's general properties are not very
| relevant and a centeralized list maintained by DTCC may well
| better serve their particular needs. To the extent that it
| does: more power to them!
| miohtama wrote:
| For the Gary Genler's comment (and the opinion of a lot of
| commenters on Hacker News):
|
| > Though we're merit neutral, I'd note that the underlying assets
| in the metals ETPs have consumer and industrial uses, while in
| contrast bitcoin is primarily a speculative, volatile asset
| that's also used for illicit activity including ransomware,[4]
| money laundering,[5] sanction evasion,[6] and terrorist
| financing.[7]
|
| You can find how this was addressed in the approval:
|
| > See, e.g., Kling Letter (stating that the bitcoin futures price
| is beholden to the spot price, and the spot price has always
| been, and continues to be, manipulated by bad actors); Better
| Markets Letter I at 2 and 4-9 and Better Markets Letter II at 4-6
| (stating that spot bitcoin ETPs are extremely vulnerable to
| manipulation by bad actors because spot bitcoin markets (1) have
| a history of artificially inflated trading volumes due to rampant
| manipulation and wash trading, (2) are highly concentrated, and
| (3) rely on a select group of individuals and entities to
| maintain the bitcoin network); Letter from John Palmer, dated
| Aug. 11, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-028 (stating that 75% of
| the bitcoin in circulation is controlled by a small minority who
| use market makers to pump and dump); Daniel Smith Letter ("[t]he
| history of crypto is a never-ending history of frauds and
| scams"); Letter from Billy Jensen, dated Sept. 5, 2023, regarding
| SR- CboeBZX-2023-028 (stating that bitcoin is a digital Ponzi,
| and that approving a spot ETF "will bring greater unsuspecting
| fools into the pyramid scheme"); Letter from The Registered
| Principal, dated Aug. 9, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-038, SR-
| CboeBZX-2023-040, SR-CboeBZX-2023-042, SR- CboeBZX-2023-044, SR-
| NASDAQ-2023-016, SR-NASDAQ-2023-019, and SR-NYSEARCA-2023-44
| ("[t]here are no verifiable entities or persons as points of
| ultimate origin of [b]itcoin which makes it very likely to be a
| major fraud operation"); Letter from Joseph, dated July 18, 2023,
| regarding SR-CboeBZX- 2023-044 ("[a] cartel of organized crime
| and money-launders [sic] actively manipulate the price of
| [b]itcoin through the use of Tether and other crypto-ponzi
| schemes"); Letter from Avinash Shenoy, dated Oct. 18, 2023,
| regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (stating that manipulation in the
| bitcoin marketplace has not gone away); Letter from Winston Wood,
| dated Oct. 19, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (stating that
| the bitcoin market is manipulated and has a history rife with
| scams and criminal activity); Letter from Greg Steven, dated Oct.
| 19, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 ("Steven Letter") (stating
| that bitcoin is wash traded on platforms outside of U.S.
| jurisdiction); Letter from Neil Fulton, dated Oct. 20, 2023,
| regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 (recommending that spot bitcoin ETPs
| be disapproved until bitcoin wash trading is minimized); Letters
| from Micah Warren, Associate Professor of Mathematics, University
| of Oregon, dated Oct. 27, 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016, and
| dated Dec. 15, 2023, regarding SR-CboeBZX-2023-072 ("Warren
| Letters") (explaining how the bitcoin ledger, which is maintained
| by for-profit mining entities, could become significantly less
| diverse and less costly to manipulate). Some commenters also
| assert that the bitcoin asset itself is a manipulation or fraud.
| One commenter states that "the complete lack of knowledge of who
| the operators of the bitcoin network are means that it is
| impossible to implement sufficient control measures to ensure a
| fair market that is free from manipulation of both token trades,
| actions of the operators, or even the fundamental properties of
| the asset itself." See Letter from Brandon B., dated Oct. 25,
| 2023, regarding SR-NASDAQ-2023-016 ("Brandon Letter"), at 4.
| Another commenter asserts that the questions the Commission has
| been asking about fraud and manipulation are misguided because
| "they are predicated on the idea that [b]itcoin is something
| legitimate which could possibly serve the public interest." This
| commenter claims that "[b]itcoin is, and has always been, a form
| of investment fraud" that should be banned, not regulated. See
| Letter from Sal
|
| > Commission acknowledges these concerns. Pursuant to Section
| 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, however, the Commission must
| approve a proposed rule change filed by a national securities
| exchange if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
| with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act.61 For the
| reasons described above, the Commission finds that the Proposals
| satisfy the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the
| requirement in Section 6(b)(5)62 that the Exchanges' rules be
| designed to "prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
| practices."
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| As my Dad told me, anyone investing in crypto is a fool looking
| to take advantage of another fool. It's all Greater Fool Theory.
| ur-whale wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
|
| But I must admit that using your actual dad as the source of
| authority is quite a stretch.
| redcobra762 wrote:
| He's not arguing the position as correct _because_ his dad
| told it to him. He 's not arguing the belief at all, he's
| just stating it.
|
| So no, it's not an argument from authority.
| Lambdanaut wrote:
| Usually an argument from authority doesn't hold any weight,
| but come on.
|
| _It 's their dad_
| elwell wrote:
| > anyone investing in crypto
|
| FTFY: anyone investing
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Not really.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| Not really. My first econ professor equated regular investing
| in stocks is more like buying a a loan (at the absolute most
| basic level).
|
| You can keep it, and hopefully get more money out of it than
| you put in, or risk getting less or none of it if the
| underlying borrower wasn't the best and goes in to default.
|
| Or you can sell it to someone else for more or less depending
| on the borrowers performance.
| bodiekane wrote:
| It's sad people are so financially illiterate.
|
| Buying partial ownership (shares) in a real company that
| makes a product or service profitably, or loaning money to a
| person or business that will be paid back with interest, are
| both ways to invest capital which can increase in value with
| no "greater fool".
|
| Apple stock isn't worth more today than in 1990 because
| people arbitrarily agreed upon a bigger number, it's worth
| more because they've innovated and grown and now sell
| expensive products to a billion customers around the world.
|
| Crypto tokens, NFTs, beanie babies, rare coins, paintings
| only increase in value if some greater fool comes along to
| pay more than you paid for it. At least with a painting or a
| beanie baby you could display it in your house, I guess.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Interestingly, the SEC and Gary did not publish any tweet or
| press release..
| iceIX wrote:
| I guess you missed this one?
| https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gensler-statement-spot-bi...
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Ahh.. and there I was, refreshing press releases, and url-
| hacking to get the latest (2024-4 and then 2024-5) haha
| dpflan wrote:
| What other products that are as known-to-be-risky-and-associated-
| with-fraud are backed by an ETF? Genuinely curious what else is
| out there...
| jMyles wrote:
| The world's foremost money launderer is a fund provider for
| several ETFs, eg:
|
| https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B4X9L53...
| mratsim wrote:
| Stocks of WeWork?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| The fact that Spot Bitcoin ETFs were ever contemplated into
| existence just shows the general insanity of crypto. After all,
| if you believe that cryptocurrencies, with "the code is the law"
| ethos and non-reputable transactions, are the wave of the future,
| just transact in BTC directly. If you believe crypto is actually
| too risky to manage individually (e.g. hacked/stolen keys) then
| you'd want the benefit of something like an ETF to manage your
| ownership. But buying an ETF that itself just holds crypto assets
| is either an exercise in futility or a "worst of all worlds"
| situation. But I guess a middle man needs to make a buck
| somehow...
| jMyles wrote:
| Agreed - I think the little cryptographer in all of us regards
| this as a sad day.
|
| It's going to take real courage to leave the economic systems
| of predation and extraction behind. Whether or not you think
| crypto is likely to be a large part of that motion (I do, but
| some reasonable folks disagree), there's nothing about this
| action that feels like it's part of it.
| psychlops wrote:
| > The fact that Spot Bitcoin ETFs were ever contemplated into
| existence just shows the general insanity of crypto.
|
| Why is it the insanity of crypto? The action is entirely
| established interests putting a wrapper around crypto.
|
| How do you suppose a large fund should purchase bitcoin? They
| specialize in markets, not wallet management. Many also do not
| hold their own cash individually and entrust institutions.
| rastafarigpu wrote:
| Irony of the millenium! Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to "free" us from
| the banks, "speculative" finanacial institutions and centralised
| control? Guess human greed trumps everything!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-10 23:01 UTC)