Topic: [Discussion] Bitcoin Spot ETFs (Read 723 times)

Interesting events today.

SEC tweeted that Bitcoin Sport ETFs had been approved



There was a Bitcoin price shake up after the announcement, only for them to announce a few moments later that the account had been compromised  
I smell a rat. I think this was a pre-planned market manipulation tactic that they are just going to blame on a “hack”.

And now they will self investigate that “hack”  

I don't think anything has changed from the position we were some months ago, the majority of people still believe that a spot etf approval is just a matter of when and not if, so except a final decision is given against that, the believe remains that an approval is on its way. But i have also read a few different opinions lately, people who think it would be rejected like it has happened in the past and that all these optimism of an approval is just manipulation, soon we will find out which is true.

Everything is pointing towards positivity. If it was going to be the other way round, the evidence would have been enormous as well. Even other countries of the world are giving bitcoin a chance by eliminating some barriers on bitcoin before now. This is the long awaited time, and the timing is perfect with the bull run on sight. We should just prepare for the massive regulations that will accompany this development.

Giving this one last bump before sharing the SEC's decision which should come in 2-3 days from now. Everyone seems to be very optimistic about multiple approvals, and I understand why with all of the amendments to the filings we've been seeing the last few days, ETF commercials, etc.. but I'm still a bit skeptical. Thoughts on this? and do you think this is just going to be another "buy the rumor, sell the news event" (short term)?

I cannot really predict what is going to happen, but soon enough we'll experience it, because according to the op the final deadline for the applications are coming fast, and in the first three months of 2024, we would know if one or more of these applications will be accepted or if all of them would be rejected. The SEC met with Fidelity to discuss their spot etf proposal, and last month they also met with Grayscale and BlackRock, and i know that this has added to the speculations but there is nothing definitive yet.

It been some time since I last updated this, so here is everything that happened last week:

- VanEck updated its ETF filing and is now using HODL as its ticker.
- Both BlackRock and Bitwise have filed for an update
- SEC Issues “Crypto Investing” Caution, Positive Bitcoin ETF Signal Ahead?
- Fidelity has met with the SEC to discuss their Spot ETF.

As we're approaching the next deadline (Mid-January) do you think any of this is a sign that a Spot ETF will be approved soon?

Some new updates in the last 24 hours:

- Grayscale files for an S-3[1]
- Fidelity files an amendment[2] to its Spot ETF
- Blackrock also updated its ETF filing[3]

[1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/grayscale-new-spot-bitcoin-etf-nyse
[2] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/10/18/bitcoin-nears-29k-as-fidelity-etf-amendment-bumps-bullish-sentiment/
[3] https://decrypt.co/202385/blackrock-amends-bitcoin-etf-acknowledges-fierce-competition

You're right. I deleted the post now. Apparently, that was false and some journalist from Fox has confirmed that with BlackRock[1].

We can already see how the price is starting to go back to what it was. It's crazy how many crypto sites have already written about it without confirming anything.

[1] https://twitter.com/EleanorTerrett/status/1713913109272809602

Seems early and unexpected. No other sources confirming this though other than Cointelegraph tweet https://twitter.com/Cointelegraph/status/1713908025520538079. This is probably a wrong/fake news.

So it looks like the SEC has decided[1] to not appeal the court's decision regarding Grayscale's conversion of the Futures ETF to a Spot ETF[2]. So now, there is a lot of speculation that we might get to see the first bitcoin ETF approved (Ark Invest) by the 10th of January. Thoughts?

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-sec-does-not-plan-appeal-court-decision-grayscale-bitcoin-etf-source-2023-10-13/
[2] https://blockworks.co/news/grayscale-sec-spot-bitcoin-etf

They have also delayed[1][2] the decision for the rest of ETFs listed on the OP: BlackRock, Invesco, Valkyrie, Bitwise, WisdomTree, Fidelity, and VanEck.

Also, Franklin Templeton has filed a 19b-4 for its spot Bitcoin ETF[3].

[1] https://decrypt.co/199305/sec-punts-four-spot-bitcoin-etf-filing-ahead-government-shutdown
[2] https://www.cryptowisser.com/news/us-sec-delays-its-decision-on-fidelity-vaneck-and-wisdomtree-bitcoin-etf-applications/
[3] https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/breaking-franklin-templeton-files-a-19b-4-for-its-spot-bitcoin-etf-application-202309261945

The SEC has also extended its decision time for another Bitcoin ETF that is not mentioned in the table in OP. It's from Global X. They had until 7 October 2023 to either accept or reject it, but they extended their decision for another 45 days.

That does not seem to be a problem. In my opinion, the current situation in the US economy needs to improve and the IRS should start lowering the interest rate before a spot ETF can provide a large volume of institutional liquidity to the crypto market. Until then, spot ETFs are definitely not a game changer.

Update: ARKs spot ETF has been delayed[1] by the SEC until January next year (the deadline was previously set to November 11th).

[1] https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/sro/cboebzx/2023/34-98530.pdf
[2] https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-pushes-deadline-ark-21shares-spot-bitcoin-etf

What I meant by "ignoring," he'll delay things and file appeals, just like he did in the case against Ripple. The SEC lost in court, but did not agree with the verdict and planned to file an appeal.
After losing the Grayscale case on Aug 29,  the SEC still did not approve any ETFs in September. They also have 45 days to file an appeal so that would make something like Oct 14 the deadline for that and that's almost exactly the date of their second ETF deadline.
Coindesk cited Gabriel Shapiro from Delphi Labs who said: "Every time they lose in court they just shamelessly say the judge got it wrong and pursue more shenanigans."

I predict that Gensler will file an appeal in the Grayscale case and if he loses that, he'll attack the futures to buy time because the whole case is based on the fact that the SEC allowed futures and doesn't want to allow spot citing market manipulation, but it's the same spot price that decides the price of both futures and spot ETFs. I don't think that after so many years he'll be able to cancel futures ETF, as this would open the SEC to a lot of civil cases, but if Gensler finds out he'll be forced to vacate the chair in a few months, he could make that last suicidal attempt and cancel futures for a while and delay spot ETF this way.

Why is Gensler doing this if there are no arguments?
You can answer this by watching the latest interview with him (I think it was by Bloomberg).
He doesn't even directly answer the question when asked about ETFs. He talks about crypto and how many people were hurt by altcoin scams and how they want to protect people, but the question was about bitcoin. The same bitcoin the SEC called a commodity.

There's an interview with Mike Belshe from BitGo who said the SEC's decisions about bitcoin are political and have nothing to do with existing laws. They interpret the laws however they want and he mentions senator Elizabeth Warren who is probably pulling the strings.
You could say she's attacking bitcoin because it's used for giving bribes and laundering money, but you don't need bitcoin for that and her colleague from the same party can tell us a thing or two about that.
https://decrypt.co/198398/bitcoin-critic-senator-menendez-corruption-bribery

"I don't like crypto because it's dirty money, but if you want something done, I'll gladly take some cash." -Robert Menendez

I would not agree that anyone (not even Gensler) can ignore the decisions of the courts, because the courts exist so that people can fight for their rights if they feel that they are threatened or violated.

However, I agree that the man behaves a bit strangely considering the interest he is opposing, and we know that money in that country is something that gives power, and all those companies that want something from him have more than $15 trillion under management, and if he doesn't come to his senses, I have no doubt that they will find a way to remove him from the position he is in now.

As for the election, I think that everything is possible, although I think that Biden simply should not be in that position due to his health condition, and if Trump were to be re-elected, I don't think that the SEC policy would change much considering that Trump is nearing the end of his mandate had some very aggressive ideas when it came to cryptocurrencies. Considering the views of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when it comes to Bitcoin, it seems that he would be the best choice, although we all know that politicians talk one thing before the election, and when they are elected, they do something completely different.

^
Gensler doesn't care much about court rulings and he even said it in his recent bloomberg interview. He isn't going to respect court decisions when it comes to crypto!

I hope that you're right about this and ETFs pass this year, or in Spring of next year, but the way I see it, Gensler is going to fight it until they remove it from the chair and that opportunity will come next year if Biden loses. In such case whoever comes next will remove Gensler, which is why I said that ETFs are going to get approved by the end of 2024.

It's going to be a miracle if he approves anything next month. You'd have to threaten him or otherwise put his back against the wall to achieve such outcome.

He can be stubborn as much as he wants, but he still has to admit that some things have changed, and that is first of all the fact that the biggest of the biggest got involved in the race (BlackRock), and that Grayscale managed to win in court and that any further delay than what is allowed by law will not end well for the SEC.

Therefore, I believe that the preconditions have been created for such an ETF to finally be approved, and for it to be in March of next year at the latest - which again perfectly coincides with the next halving and could result in a big bull run in the months after that.

Because of the final deadlines that are in March 2024.

The SEC is known for delaying things and I feel like Gensler is a stubborn donkey that's going to stand on the ramparts until he gets wounded and taken away or gets relieved by a superior officer.
He wants to show the world he doesn't agree with the idea of a bitcoin ETF by voting against it for as long as he can.

I'm saying this because it's literally the same market it was a year ago and the applicants want the same thing. Gensler had enough time to get to know this market and he was against in 2021, 2022 and again delayed things in September of this year (first deadline).

Why do you think that we will have to wait until the end of next year when there is enough time for the SEC to make a positive decision, perhaps even before the end of this year? Except for Ark, which has a deadline of January 10, 2024, all other companies will receive an answer no later than March 16, 2024, and if even then the answer is negative, all these companies in question should submit new requests very quickly, because the SEC can make its decision to be extended to a maximum of 240 days, which would mean that the ETF would not be possible even next year.

I thought that they would agree to it someday, who knows when. They still seem to want to drag out the process so that the crypto market cannot stabilize or increase and has a tendency to decline. But at some point, they will have no choice but to agree, which will be big news for the crypto market.

Maybe that will immediately make Bitcoin prices rise like crazy because it means the government has started to open up to accepting Bitcoin. If other governments welcome it by accepting Bitcoin as well, it will make Bitcoin even more popular and will be like a booster for the price of Bitcoin to rise.

But before we get there, we have to face a situation where the market looks hopeless, discouraging many people from seeing its movements. But don't worry, everything will end well.

This is a joke, of course. This is fake. I mean, it's obviously fake, at least from my perspective. Gary Gensler has failed many Bitcoin supporters, but I don't think he's this dumb or naïve. There may indeed be such a thing at the back of his mind right now, but I don't see him as this stupid to whisper his embarrassing and self-serving plans and motives around. Who would do that? That's suicide. This Mike Alfred is obviously just messing around. You know, to keep yourself or your account interesting for your followers.

Before you read, this might be fake news, because these teasers usually are, but I'll drop this here in case it isn't.

JUST IN:

SEC insider says chief Gary Gensler has told friends and advisors that he would like to gracefully extricate himself from his “personal Vietnam” by approving one or more spot Bitcoin ETFs from the major fund companies where he hopes to get a job after leaving the agency

https://twitter.com/mikealfred/status/1703465138681192814

Even if it's fake I there's going to be an approval by the end of next year with chairman Gensler or without him.

Isn't it the same today, considering that we have millions of BTC that are under the control of CEX and various online wallets? What is changing is that the number of BTC that will now be in custody storage will increase even more, which means that the biggest risk will be in saving them from hacking.

Apart from that, I read something interesting in WO today ->



In other words, they are only interested in profit and don't care how they will achieve it. This is no surprise, we know that BlackRock or Fidelity are not doing anything for the benefit of Bitcoin, but to collect as much money as possible.

However, what worries me more is that BR has increasing shares in various BTC mining companies, which, along with their official position regarding a possible BTC fork, does not look very promising for the future.

So it looks like Franklin Templeton (1.5 Trillion dollar in assets under management) filed for a Bitcoin Spot ETF today[1].

Gary Gensler also had a hearing with the Senate today where Bitcoin ETFs were brought up. These were some of his statements:



[1] https://fortune.com/crypto/2023/09/12/franklin-templeton-etf-application-blackrock-fidelity-wall-street-grayscale/

Bitcoin, the protocol, will stay decentralized even if we have a Bitcoin ETF. It's just that a part of the supply will be held in centralized custody. Some people simply aren't interested in the non-custodial aspect of bitcoin; they just want to comfortably hold bitcoin in their brokerage accounts without thinking about how to secure their wallets and stuff.

There is so much news going on like the SEC is pending all applications including BlackRock ETF on the first deadline so we can only watch and see at this point, One time for sure it going to shake the market whether the SEC is approved or not. But my opinion is that the SEC is going to approve the applications.

There is some news that I am going to mention "JP Morgan said SEC will likely be forced to approve spot Bitcoin ETF following Grayscale's court victory. Jay Clayton, the former SEC chairman, added that spot BTC ETF approval is 'inevitable' because "the dichotomy between a futures product and a cash product can't go on forever." " - https://www.theblock.co/post/248879/jpmorgan-bitcoin-etf-sec-grayscale -



October 2023 is expected to witness increased market volatility, primarily due to key events occurring in the middle of the month:
⚫ SEC's 45-day window is set to expire for reviewing the Grayscale application.
⚫ Approaching deadline for spot BTC ETF filings.
⚫ Final deadline for futures ETH ETF
Source : https://t.me/telonews_en/7709, https://twitter.com/K33Research/status/1699379950430593400?s=20

This is not to assume a spot bitcoin ETF is bad for bitcoin itself as many parties want approval to happen quickly.
Even though I'm judging from a business perspective, it's actually not that bad for big investors and some of them really need a spot bitcoin ETF. Saylor for example and several other investors regarding the situation they are currently facing¹.
Continuing again with Grayscale pressing the SEC to approve a spot bitcoin ETF².

1. https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1699808826550112607
2. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/grayscale-urges-us-sec-approve-spot-bitcoin-etf-following-court-victory-2023-09-05/

I agree with you, but this is more about full ownership, full control, and full verifiability. This might not really be about decentralization. To a mere Bitcoin investor, decentralization might not matter that much. What matters is that he/she has real Bitcoin and that when the price of Bitcoin soars, he/she makes money.

The problem comes when various financial instruments are created by these traditional financial players out of Bitcoin. The market will now be inundated with fake numbers, debts, IOUs, certificates, or whatever they are called. There might be an influx of money but much lesser growth in the demand of actual coins.

Look at these centralized exchanges and other Bitcoin-related platforms that we have right now. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of BTC are being traded, lent, staked hour by hour, day by day. However, do they have the same number of Bitcoin in their wallets? No!

If deadline can be given then it can be adjusted as well, there's nothing strange in taking decision into their hands if they so wish, just as we have most expected to see some getting approval sooner, there's a possibility that all may get this same approval at once, but even if the SEC were unable to meet up with them, nothing strange is going to happen because this is not the first time they will be rejecting applications on this, and i think adjusting to another date should not be as worst as rejecting any application on any ground.

That's because you have the knowledge and do know the difference between real and fake BTC, and if you know the difference, then you must be aware of the risks involved in these ETFs that real BTC might not have in them.

I am not trying to say that ETFs will make BTC look garbage or insult it, as ETFs are not good versions of real BTC. Instead, they are fake ones. But the point is, that's not why BTC was made—people would fork over fake coins using the BTC technology to earn people's trust. They are misusing the BTC technology for their own purposes.

If they really have some potential and studness, then they should come up with their own coins. Why are they building their fortunes on the unit of BTC?

When there are some large companies busy with Bitcoin ETF Spot I chose to follow its development, it is limited to trying to find out without closing the door of information about it. That is just an instrument that can facilitate investors or vice versa from various aspects. At first glance, my thinking about ETF is only a business problem.
Bitcoin is only one, namely BTC. My thinking will not change in looking at Bitcoin as a coin that has the best value.

The final deadlines are really exciting plus the upcoming Bitcoin block halving.
Just incase we will have a high chance before these final deadlines will happen. I am really expecting Bitcoin will start to rally before on these said dates, after Bitcoin block halving is the most awaiting event, we have these final deadlines for ETFs.

I did not meant to say by hurting the decentralization factor of BTC that, there will be some impact (bad one) on the BTC coin or blockchain. While I was talking metaphorically that if people will show more interest towards centralized pegged version of BTC (ETFs) then they will not be getting benefit from the decentralization factor thus they are vulnerable to scams and bankruptcies like the events you mentioned above.

Point is hurting means they are not going to getting benefit thus they will hurt their funds and also hurt the benefits if decentralization. I hope you are catching my words here.

I agree with the overall market sentiment. After the SEC v GBTC court decision, I think the approval is inevitable at this point, just a question of when. The sooner the better but I guess most people already expect the SEC to delay until the final deadline in 2024.

The good side as everyone expects is fresh money coming to bid Bitcoin again, reviving this market that has been down only (price and volume) for almost two years

Yeah, the close timing between spot ETF approval and halving would be a monumental catalyst. Although I don't think the halving will come before the ETF decision final deadline.

IMO they will get approved, after jumping though all the hoops that the government wants them to.

It's not about regulation, it's about taxes. The government wants to make sure no matter what happens they get their cut. So, despite what people are nay-saying it's just a mater of time till it goes though. Now, the question of after the government gets their hands in everyone's pockets will the final ETFs look like the current proposals. That is the question.

Just my view, not financial advice.

-Dave

The good thing about Bitcoin Spot ETFs is that they allow new players, including large companies, to enter the market. This means the entry of billions of dollars in liquidity into the thirsty crypto market. This will give a major recovery to the market.

Also, the entry of large players into the Bitcoin market creates a kind of balance in the market by reducing the chances of large whales controlling and manipulating the market without competition. Having multiple big players is healthy for the market.

As for the bad thing about Bitcoin Spot ETFs, they focus on profit only and do not care about adoption. This reinforces the concept of investing in Bitcoin for profit only without there being real adoption as a means of peer-to-peer payment.

How BTC users decide to store their coins, hold ther keys or not even hold any key at all doesn't affect BTC in itself or what it stands for, people have been holding their BTC's in centralized exchanges and lending and earning platforms for a long time now, these type of people have been losing their coins since MT. Gox, and many more still lost their coins when ftx, censius and 3AC bit the dust; yet BTC still remains decentralized money that's censorship resistant.

It is their coins, so they can store it how they want, even if the recommended way would always be using a self custody wallet. But how people store their coins doesn't affect BTC in itself, it can only affect the price of BTC.

Almost all of the issuers are refilling, meaning that their earlier proposal was rejected by the SEC for different reasons and they will definitely have learnt from those refusals to submit a more comprehensive proposal to convince the SEC to accept it this time around.

I do not expect they will get a response by the first or second or even the third deadline, this process will be drawn out as much as possible and many of them now may still get rejected on vague technical grounds.

Hopefully we do get one pr two ETFs over the line.

- Jay -

I do not think it is the first deadline as it was delayed before too. And these ETFs will still delayed at 17th October. And about getting these ETFs approved, I have solid vibe or I should say 100% vibe that these ETFs will be approved one day if not at 17th October. Because they are accumulating BTC and buying more and more btc at dips by doing DCA. Of course I have no solid way to prove that they are actually doing jt because it is an open market and anyone could make trades but if we look at the trade books then number might not show up there because we knew the reason behind it. They have direct broker and they need not to trade on exchanges.

Well, another thought I have in my mind is these ETFs should not be approved for the well reputation of BTC because it will hurt the decentralization factor that BTC promotes as we know adoption of BTC' ETFs will promote centralization. 

But we can not ignore a fact that approval of these ETFs will take the price of BTC to the moon in the next ATH. Many studies and analysis have been made by many news outlets which shows that approvals of these ETFs could take the value of BTC to $150,000 easily. But to be honest I think BTC could maximally reach to $110,000 because if it touches $70,000 again then the only thing that will push it towards $110,000 is the approval of ETFs.  I know another factor is interest rate but they are not going to decrease because if they will decrease that then Euro has to face many difficulties so interest rates will increase and lesser money will be in circulation and in market too.

That ARK is either way going to get screwed.
BlackRock will have its chance by October 17th, if this one gets delayed the rest will just be again trashed, if it gets a positive nod then ARK will have to wait in the shadows till November 11th despite being like what, two years earlier to this circus of delays and promises? Cathie Woods is probably at the end of her nerves with this, if Baclkrock gets in first it will completely eclipse everyone else.

For 'the bad" thing, are we still cheering for Wall Street money or do we go by the not your keys, not your coins?
Depending on how you look at it it's both good and bad at the same time, the profits will be there, and the idealistic world is probably on its deathbed, after all, it's all about what you want from Bitcoin, it's a bunch of code,  you use it as you see fit or you just stop it and look for something else.


China was banning Bitcoin, the real deal, the SEC is deciding on IOU pieces of paper that might be backed by Bitcoin.

We all know ETFs are not going to be accepted anytime soon, or I am wrong about all of us because I have this idea that they will approve the ETFs after the halving of BTC because after halving a small dip comes and they might want to accumulate more BTC there too, so in that plan they will not approve the ETF.

I know that by saying this, I am directly saying that those who applied for these ETFs are in collaboration with the SEC, and they are all playing some dirty game here, but the thing is, the hype of ETFs and their adoption has gained so much attraction that it might become a place for monopoly. Because if we see only the USA as having a good or bad vibe on the market currently, I think it has become the new China for crypto.

My personal thoughts have already been shared, but things are still blurry because if they really are accumulating BTC, then one thing is for sure: at some point, their ETFs will get approved, and they knew that because that's why they are accumulating.

From what I've read from law people on Twitter: chances of getting approved is great(especially for BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust). It's just highly likely that the SEC is going to kick the can down the road for now and delay it further especially after Barry Silbert's GrayScale rules in favor against the SEC.

But then again, while at least one is highly likely to be approved in the future, no one knows which deadline.

P.S. I don't know how accurate this is as I know nothing about what the process of approving these things are.

With all of the talk about Bitcoin Spot ETFs lately, I thought it would be a good idea to make a topic so we can discuss them.

This right here is the SEC's deadlines to issue a decision about the different ETFs (Source: BeInCrypto[1]):



So now with them missing the first deadline, the next one will be next Month (the 17th of October). Your thoughts on this? The good, the bad, the odds of getting approved?

[1] https://beincrypto.com/full-list-spot-bitcoin-etf-applications-deadlines/