There's something very ironic about exchange-traded funds for assets that can
literally be traded P2P. Futures markets make sense because large-scale businesses and miners can limit exposure to volatility risk by hedging with forwards. An ETF would really just be for speculation. It would mainly exist because of current regulatory uncertainty and counterparty risk around spot trading for institutional firms.
I don't understand why the SEC guys are so hostile to Bitcoin ETFs. Both CME and CBOE are trading Bitcoin futures and everything seems to be going well on that front. Then what is the problem in approving the Bitcoin ETFs? IMO, ETFs can be less volatile when compared to the futures?
I wouldn't say they're hostile. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are a brand new asset class. They haven't even existed for a decade yet. That alone suggests the SEC should take time to analyze market conditions. Liquid ETFs can mean significant Wall Street exposure, which can in turn have major effects on the US and even the global economy. If an ETF will be derived from the futures markets, the SEC would want to see very healthy and liquid futures markets. For now, volume is still quite low.
Consider that the first US-regulated copper ETF was just established a few years ago. It took over two years to get approval.
Now compare bitcoins to copper.