News

Major Bitcoin ETF Rejected by SEC: One Commissioner Disagrees Publicly 

cryptocuser 4 min read 270  

Pictures via Pixabay, SEC.

Be sure to check out the podcast, Blockchain 2025; latest installment here. Want to make your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Assess our tools part time.

ETFs are believed, among cryptosphere cheerleaders for mainstream adoption, even something such as the holy grail of financial investment products. Exchange traded funds could be recorded on legacy boards such as the New York Stock Exchange in substantially the identical way as conventional stocks. The bitcoin variety would likely be a basket of different crypto investments, diversified and relatively low cost like mutual funds. That motto is thought to be less insecure, and of course saving less crypto savvy investors that the problem of picking which to buy. And, especially with respect to decentralized electronic resources, the complication of keys, a wallet, and figuring out storage or custody is all taken care of. Retail investors are very Knowledgeable about ETFs.  

Not everybody at the SEC in Agreement on Newest Bitcoin ETF Rejection

Thursday, July 26 might return as a severe setback for the prospect of bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). For the next time, the same important trust using for bitcoin ETF approval was rejected by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). SR-BatsBZX-2016-30 officially denied that the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust capability to record and trade shares. The decision comes amidst high levels of confidence toward bitcoin ETF acceptance after a month. At least one SEC officer does not agree with her coworkers ’ choice. 
The SEC released its decision to deny a significant bitcoin trust that the ability to record and trade shares as an ETF. In a 92 page excuse, the US’s chief regulator of these markets rejected a rule change at the behest of both Bats BZX Exchange. The suggested change would have let bitcoin tethered investment products.

The SEC enlarged on its rationale, describing how “present or newly created bitcoin futures markets may achieve substantial size, and also an ETP listing exchange may have the ability to demonstrate in a proposed rule change that it will have the ability to deal with the danger of manipulation and fraud by discussing surveillance information with a controlled market of substantial size linked to bitcoin, in addition to, where appropriate, with the place markets inherent applicable bitcoin derivatives. ”

Perhaps a favorable sign for fans is how the SEC stipulated not to have bias necessarily against cryptocurrencies. Their latest choice places blame on the proposition rather than its particular elements. Although it’s rejecting the application and rule change, “the Commission highlights that its disapproval does not break in an evaluation of whether bitcoin, or blockchain technologies more generally, has utility or value as an innovation or a investment,” the SEC assured.
Theyrsquo;re turning back the rule change “as discussed in detail below, BZX has not fulfilled its burden under the Exchange Act and the Commission’s Rules of Practice to demonstrate that its proposal is more in accordance with the demands of the Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5), in particular the requirement that its rules are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,” tantalizingly noting how punctually, “controlled bitcoin-related markets may continue to grow and develop. ”
However, not everyone at the SEC has been on board with the recent decision to deny bitcoin market traded funds. “By precluding acceptance of cryptocurrency-based ETPs for the foreseeable future, the Commission is engaging in merit regulation,”  Commissioner Hester M. Peirce wrote in a printed dissent from her colleagues. “Bitcoin is a new phenomenon, along with also its own long-term viability is uncertain. It may succeed; it may fail. The Commission, nevertheless, is not well positioned to evaluate the likelihood of outcome, for bitcoin or any other asset. Many investors have expressed an interest in gaining exposure to bitcoin, and a subset of these shareholders would rather gain exposure without possessing bitcoin directly. ”

Echoing opinion among fans and crypto investors alike, that the Commissioner wrote how such a item “predicated on bitcoin would offer traders indirect exposure to bitcoin by means of a product which deals on a regulated securities market and in a fashion that eliminates some of the frictions and worries of purchasing and holding bitcoin directly. If we were to accept the ETP at issue here, investors could choose whether to get it or avoid it. The Commission’s activity now deprives investors of the decision. I refuse the role of gatekeeper of innovationa role very different from (and, really, inconsistent with) our goal of protecting shareholders, fostering capital formation, and easing fair, orderly, and effective markets. Accordingly, I dissent,” Commissioner Peirce emphasized.