Topic: Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask! - page 11. (Read 16372 times)

The discount is at the minimum levels of last year.
It could evaporate only on ETF conversion, otherwise I see a little discount as possible.
Definitely one of the best trades I have been advising was being long GBTC vs MSTR, which performed decently in this scenario even if ma Microstrategy was more resilient than I thought.

Ah yes thanks for explaining, forgot it's about the number Bitcoin's in the trust vs number of shares...

Makes me think the 17% discount could evaporate sooner than later.

It doesn't work exactly like that.
It's very volatile right now, but on a back of the envelop basis:

at 10:52 NYT
BTC: 27,400 USD
GBTC: 20.50 USD
ENTITLEMENT: 0.00090094 BTC (as of yesterday, no time to adjust that).

So every GBTC share contains 0.00090094 BTC, so it is worth 0.00090094*27,400 USD=24.69 USD.
Market Price is 20.50 USD, so the discount is 17% at that time.

Discount still around 25% unless mistaken? Currently $BTC around $27.5K and $GBTC around $20.5K (27.5 x 0.75 = 20.63)

It is up around 15%+ today though as of writing.

Breaking news.




This doesn't imply an immediate GBTC conversion to an ETF, but for sure it put some pressure on the SEC, which has a flurry of deadlines in these days.

In the market GBTC skyrocketed to a 15% discount.

In the meantime, the discount of share price to NAV has somewhat tightened to sub 25%, only to marginally widen again to the current level of 25.8%.



This is, notwithstanding the supposed “SEC disappointment” when it comes to ETF approval, the best indicator of how market participants are betting on approval (with an immediate effect of GBTC conversion).

alot of SEC bigheads dont like "trusts" as being a fund trading vessel and prefer a LLC or a corp. it is because there is no human owner of a trust(as thts their point).  thus hard to litigate against anyone if things go wrong.

trusts operate by paper rule(contract and policy) of an organisation. not by a CEO. and so if things turn bad the SEC would like to have some human they can point to to answer for the actions.

however trying to prevent a bitcoin ETF via some recent "we dont like trusts" is a bit late because hundreds of fiat held ETF's are already set up using trusts.

..
as for previous poster trying to suggest that legally if a futures ETF is accepted then a spot ETF should be default accepted. is weak. .. though arguments of if a futures TRUST was accepted then that moots the point of a spot TRUST disagreement. there are other factors at play that make futures ETF different then spot ETF and its these differences that need to be considered

 

Just spice up the topic a bit, quiet here. Many probably also receive press releases from Grayscale by mail, the last of them was a newsletter about a letter from lawyers from Davis Polk to the pending GBTC 19b-4 application.

The main points that Grayscale focuses on:
-The SEC is already able to approve spot bitcoin ETFs based on its previous approval of bitcoin futures ETFs, since, according to lawyers, the spot and Bitcoin futures markets are inextricably linked.
-The SEC, as a regulatory body, should continue to consistently and fairly provide issuers with feedback or recommendations, rather than choosing winners and losers by acting biased.
-The SEC cannot impose an additional, new requirement on Bitcoin spot ETP or on other Bitcoin spot ETP, such as a Trust Fund, whose applications under Rule 19b-4 were
 previously rejected as this would be unfair discrimination between issuers, in violation of the mandate of Section 6(b)(5) and the Administrative Procedure Act.

https://grayscale.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/97062447v22-Grayscale-Comment-Letter-7.27.2023.pdf

@Daltonik. According to this article Genesis Global gave undercollaterized loans that totalled to $2.3 billion to famous cryptospace gamblers Su Zhu and Kylie Davis, the founders of 3 Arrows Capital. This is head shaking because it appears that Barry Silbert has done something similar as Sam Bankman-Fraud when Sam gave loans backed by questionable collateral to Alameda Research.



The lawsuit specifically alleges that Genesis misrepresented its risk management process by making huge loans to irresponsible counter parties, including Three Arrows Capital (3AC), motivated in part by those counter parties benefiting the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), another DCG subsidiary. The lawsuit details loans to 3AC totaling $2.3 billion and suggests that the collateral for this trade was valued at less than 50% of the loan total. A portion of this collateral was actually shares of GBTC.

Source https://protos.com/dcg-fraudulently-covered-up-3ac-induced-insolvency-gemini-lawsuit/

Gemini, represented by co-founder Cameron Winklevoss, has accused DCG Enterprise of fraudulent behavior and is threatening legal action if Barry Silbert refuses to pay a total of $1.465 billion, including a payment of $630 million, which was due back in May. Cameron Winklevoss says that this is the final offer to the founder of DCG as part of the repayment of the debt. the last one.

https://twitter.com/cameron/status/1676024844641550337

Best and final offer

In the meantime, Grayscale is having a good moment following BlackRock Application.

GBTC trading volume spikes 400% after BlackRock files for bitcoin ETF

Of course, in case of ETF approval, Grayscale would be converted into an ETF very quickly.




Hence the reduction in the NAV discount.

ivomm's post reference

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62428102

You should provide a link to the extent that you believe one of Ivomm's post in the WO thread is relevant in order that we are easily able to go to such post that you are referencing so we don't have to waste too much time trying to figure out the puzzle of what you mean, exactly..  I am not exactly sure what you are wanting to say.. or the extent to which what Ivomm said is what you want to say or if you might be saying something else.

TLDR:  link or it didn't happen.

according to the post of ivomm on 178336,
in the case of blackrock success, GBTC would probably greatly benefit

https://cointelegraph.com/news/grayscale-bitcoin-trust-2023-high-blackrock-etf-filing-buyers


https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/06/16/blackrock-may-have-found-way-to-get-sec-approval-for-spot-bitcoin-etf/

I was going to open a thread on this.
Actually, the filing from Blackrock has little to no innovation compared to those already rejected.
Sure, they are a prominent player in the space and are proposing the same plumbing that has been approved for other EFT (SPDR; for example, has the exact same logic).
Yet I find it difficult to think they will have their filing approved unless something really changes in the SEC.

I wonder how the SEC will react to the application of mastodon BlackRock, which has applied to launch a spot bitcoin ETF, if we take into account that BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager company for about $10 trillion.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923017574/bit20230608_s1.htm

https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1669691447996456963

Grayscale Investments is talking about the creation of a new Grayscale Funds Trust, which will allow Grayscale to independently manage and bring new and innovative products to the market. The application for registration on Form N-1A was filed with the SEC on May 9, which specifies the following products: Grayscale Global Bitcoin Composite ETF, Grayscale Privacy ETF, Grayscale Ethereum Futures ETF. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1976672/000113743923000644/gftn1a052023.htm

Press release from Grayscale Investments: https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2023/05/09/2665053/0/en/Grayscale-Investments-Forms-Grayscale-Funds-Trust.html

the thing is.
anyone can start a OTC (darkpool) spot ETF now. infact its what grayscale are doing now. but then putting in stupid "no redemption" policy stuff to lock people in

but grayscale want to be listed on the wallstreet listings.. and that comes with higher criteria of stable-ish trade variance where prices dont move 5% in a day every day

the SEC like stable variance not volatility. they like day traders getting the ups and downs of 0.1% whi;e investors only accumulate 5% a year

they dont want to see winners and losers of 5% a day and so they are hesitant to just allow a bitcoin spot etf.

alot of things have to be put in place like "circuit breakers" that stops trading if a x% variance in price occurs in a short period or getting the ETF to not be true spot but just "yesterdays close" trading of each day

along with wanting the presumed gained trust of an established regulated institution being on point as the first mover advantage

grayscale is trying to act like "we deserve to be wall street listed because we are a company" thinking its the only pre-requisite needed due to "freedom". however they should really work on redrafting their proposal template of offering and booking a sit down talk with the sec(lobbying) to really have a face to face discussion with those in charge of decision making to actually find out what template proposal would work

If Grayscale wants to change is bitcoin GBTC to an exchange traded fund, they should allow them because exchange  is a business on is own and the authority can tax the company to pay their taxation dues.  Even as it is at the end if the court allow them to convert the asset to the exchange, the authority will still tax tbem.

What really delay the court process was the denial of Grayscale. The company went to court Tuesday to argue the SEC's denial of its ETF application was "arbitrary," telling the panel of judges that Grayscale is "asking to be regulated" by the SEC through its conversion of GBTC to an ETF.

Fair enough, I guess Gov sets the rules so they are able to launder them into "clean coins" again 


If I had to guess, I also think one of these two would be the first to get an ETF. Although the likes of Greyscale as well as others have been waiting/wanting an ETF since 2018, I actually think this year or next will be the year to get one approved. SEC can't hold it back forever, and better to get one launched during a bear market or price consolidation, rather than full blown bull market for institutional demand reasons.

That said, I also thought 2020 was the year to finally get an ETF launched due to prices stabilising towards the end of the year, but that didn't happen, so maybe it'll still make many more years.