SEC decision is probably a good thing. The Winklevoss could not demonstrate that
they could secure the Bitcoins strongly enough.
Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if the ETF was approved and later
had to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't produce the Bitcoins when
a whale wanted them?
That would be a scandal of epic proportions.
Indeed I can call this rejection a blessings in disguise for Bitcoin, though we can really see a dump from here. Those who speculated Bitcoin will be approved and buy Bitcoin thinking it will rise in price is now selling because of the fear of losing.
How do you manipulate the bitcoin price? Let an ETF sell them electronically... selling them 200:1 reserve ratio. This is not bad news.
Absolutely! This is great news. The bitcoin will have much more value without an etf.
True, no regulation = wild fluctuation and there is no one limiting the price of BTC. The best place for traders!
I'm not unhappy with that outcome, for two reasons.
First, I think Bitcoin is about decentralization and "anarchy", not about being a simple stock in a market. An ETF would have converted it into some kind of "official" speculation tool. I think a further growth on the speculation on the Bitcoin isn't important, it's more important to focus on an adoption in real-world usage.
And second, I think it wasn't the right moment for a FOMO rally like the one many predicted in the case of an ETF approval. Such a rally would have inevitably boosted transaction volume, and the bottlenecks because of the unsolved scaling discussion would have been much more visible. Media attention would have focused on the "limits" of Bitcoin, not on the potentials. And yes, I think Bitcoin's scalability problem can be solved - even without sacrificing the on-chain transactions paradigm (sidechains and altchains are the way to go for me, and LN for micropayments).
I do believe that regulation and Bitcoin does not go well. This regulation is just contrasting Bitcoins definition of being decentralized.