[2018-12-01]No Bitcoin ETF Before Important Changes to BTC Markets: SEC Chairman

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: DooMAD on December 03, 2018, 12:49:42 PM

The SEC can try to regulate the exchanges if they want, pretending they're still relevant

I agree that the SEC are looking progressively less relevant to the cryptocurrency market as time goes on. How many failed BTC ETF applications were there? And now they're hoping people might take seriously their latest equivocating response ("BTC market is manipulated"). How many SEC administered markets are regularly manipulated by former and future SEC senior employees? They hardly have the cleanest shirts when it comes to dirty markets.

But the SEC is relevant in other ways; the other (heavily rigged) markets they oversee. Bitcoin needs a solid trading platform that trades commodities and equities with BTC denominated contracts before it can completely transcend the SEC. It will be amusing to take their client base away in such an event.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Carlton Banks on December 03, 2018, 09:21:40 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on December 03, 2018, 07:30:47 AM

No regulators.

Regulation is needed. We need and want rules.

What people like the SEC don't like is

a free market for rules
rules enforced by cryptography, not politics

This way regular people choose rules that work for them. The SEC wants to choose the rules that they want, not what regular people want.

Indeed, those traditional regulators will have to settle for enforcing their rules on companies that offer custodial services and handle fiat. The SEC can try to regulate the exchanges if they want, pretending they're still relevant, but hopefully most users will gradually see the sense in relegating exchanges to obsolescence in favour of more decentralised alternatives like atomic swaps.

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on December 03, 2018, 10:15:51 AM

The problem with this approach is that if Bitcoin's ecosystem will be too hostile towards regulations and control, it will eventually become outlawed in more and more countries. Bitcoin can and will survive in such conditions, but I think it will severely cripple it, since governments will put countless obstacles. I would prefer Bitcoin staying in the gray zone, with minimal attention from the governments, but it is unlikely to last for long.

I'd say we're just hostile enough. I'm just more vocal about it than most, heh. I'm not suggesting we do anything more radical than we're already doing, with the exception of relying less on centralised exchanges.

hatshepsut93

legendary

Activity: 3024

Merit: 2148

Quote from: DooMAD on December 03, 2018, 07:30:47 AM

If anything, we're heading in the opposite direction to the one the SEC wants, which I still think is a good thing. Cryptocurrency as a whole is better off without their interference. They want a world of strictly regulated and monitored centralised exchanges under direct control of the SEC. We want a world without centralised exchanges and that's exactly what we're going to get with atomic swaps. Total decentralisation and interoperability between blockchains.

The SEC think it's going to be middlemen, gatekeepers, custodians and regulators that make Cryptocurrency useful. They couldn't be more wrong if they tried.

We're on the right path and we aren't deviating from it now. No middlemen. No gatekeepers. No custodians. No regulators. We're not sacrificing any of that just to attract institutional money.

The problem with this approach is that if Bitcoin's ecosystem will be too hostile towards regulations and control, it will eventually become outlawed in more and more countries. Bitcoin can and will survive in such conditions, but I think it will severely cripple it, since governments will put countless obstacles. I would prefer Bitcoin staying in the gray zone, with minimal attention from the governments, but it is unlikely to last for long.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: DooMAD on December 03, 2018, 07:30:47 AM

No regulators.

Regulation is needed. We need and want rules.

What people like the SEC don't like is

a free market for rules
rules enforced by cryptography, not politics

This way regular people choose rules that work for them. The SEC wants to choose the rules that they want, not what regular people want.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

If anything, we're heading in the opposite direction to the one the SEC wants, which I still think is a good thing. Cryptocurrency as a whole is better off without their interference. They want a world of strictly regulated and monitored centralised exchanges under direct control of the SEC. We want a world without centralised exchanges and that's exactly what we're going to get with atomic swaps. Total decentralisation and interoperability between blockchains.

The SEC think it's going to be middlemen, gatekeepers, custodians and regulators that make Cryptocurrency useful. They couldn't be more wrong if they tried.

We're on the right path and we aren't deviating from it now. No middlemen. No gatekeepers. No custodians. No regulators. We're not sacrificing any of that just to attract institutional money.

Lmaooo

full member

Activity: 694

Merit: 108

santacoin.io

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton has claimed that bitcoin exchanges lack sufficient transparency and monitoring for the market to see approved Bitcoin Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs).

According to CNBC, at the Consensus Invest Conference in New York City recently, Clayton said:

What investors expect is that trading in the commodity that underlies that ETF makes sense and is free from the risk of manipulation. It’s an issue that needs to be addressed before I would be comfortable.

Clayton primarily feels that a Bitcoin ETF would be too easily manipulated and that not enough safeguards are in place to prevent as much. This goes in line with ongoing actions and investigations by the federal government into Tether and Bitfinex, where they may ultimately allege that Tether was used to manipulate the moving price of Bitcoin as a whole.

CCN | https://www.ccn.com/no-bitcoin-etf-before-important-changes-to-btc-markets-sec-chairman/

Topic: [2018-12-01]No Bitcoin ETF Before Important Changes to BTC Markets: SEC Chairman (Read 198 times)