Topic: SEC delays decision on ETF again, Vaneck, SolidX withdraw proposal - page 2. (Read 1534 times)

News update. First of ETF proposals withdrawn.

It appears that any derivative based on bitcoin for institutional investors was the only investment vehicle needed by VanEck, SolidX hehe.

I speculate more withdrawals will follow.



Cboe BZX Exchange withdrew its VanEck/SolidX bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) proposal on Tuesday.

According to a filing dated Sept. 17, a proposed rule change to publicly list shares of the VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust was withdrawn on Sept. 13. A decision on the proposal had already been delayed a number of times, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) faced a final deadline of Oct. 18 to determine whether to approve or reject what could have been one of the first bitcoin ETFs in the country.

The news comes just weeks after VanEck and SolidX began offering shares of the Trust to qualified institutional buyers (entities with at least $100 million in assets owned or invested) under a Rule 144A exemption. In the nearly three weeks since first announcing the product, one “basket” of four bitcoin (worth around $40,000) was traded.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/vaneck-solidx-withdraw-bitcoin-etf-proposal-from-sec-review

Apples and oranges. The SEC is probably breathing down Binance's neck and demanding they comply with US securities laws. That means not allowing US persons access to unregistered securities markets and also full KYC, hence the launch of a segregated US exchange.

That has nothing to do with the rule changes required for an ETF approval. SEC commissioners have said that won't happen until fundamental structural changes happen in the market. They want to see a majority of trading volumes move to regulated exchanges.

I do not see sec actually doing anything about that approval for now, because they have not completely gotten the support of the government completely and they still don’t know the stand of government, but now that US is trying to regulate the cryptocurrency market now through exchanges, which could be seen on the action of binance of recent and their announcement to launch a separate trading platform for the citizens of United states which I think the launching is expected this month, and for them to have done that, the US government must have demanded for it, which means that we are gradually getting their attention for cryptocurrency so with this, the sec could also consider approving the ETF, either this year or early next year.

No, they do have a limited amount of delays in their arsenal left, some of them had their last delay for example which means they will be getting a result no matter what, it could be rejection (most likely) or they could get accepted but it will be the last one. If you read the article you will see that there is usually delays that got limited and not times which means they could delay it as much as they want but with time in between longer than usual instead of times they delay.

Let's say they can delay it only 3 times, they could just make it like 1 year apart from each other to postpone for over 3-4 years span and that would basically make sure ETF will not be hyped about at all, I honestly think one will be accepted eventually tho, not soon but eventually.

they don't. they could drag their feet for many years, especially since the market is still dominated by unregulated offshore exchanges---bitmex, binance, bitfinex, huobi, okex etc.


i'd bet against approval all day if i had the chance.

The issue with getting these ETFs approved is actually a catch 22. Basically they are correct that right now its easy to manipulate the price of BTC. Remember what happened that day when BTC crashed down to $6100 or so on Bitstamp? Basically it caused a huge price crash due to Bitstamp being one of the main exchanges which makes up the price index for the bitcoin futures (on bitmex). If I recall correctly someone had like 5K BTC to sell and he kept putting it as the best ask price and it lead to algos going crazy and selling on other exchanges. 

For those that don't remember here is an article,
https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-price-flash-crash-5k-btc-dump-bitstamp/
It was back in May 2019.

For reasons like this is why the SEC doesn't want to approve an ETF. However if they approved one then BTC would have much more liquidity and a 5K sell order wouldn't cause this much mess as it did back in May 2019.

I reckon bitcoin sportsbooks should begin offering odds on whether there will be an ETF approval or another delay hehehe. However, it might be another delay. The SEC chairman has raised concerns that might not be fixed within 10 years.



Still, concerns hang over the decision to approve such a product. During the interview, Clayton raised those concerns, noting the lack of a proper crypto custody provider and the threat of price manipulation on unregulated exchanges. That's despite a number of new custody providers coming online this year, including Fidelity's new custody business and San Francisco-based Anchorage, and efforts to expose wash trading on certain exchanges.

Clayton's comments come just a few weeks before the final deadline for two ETF proposal, Bitwise and VanEck/Soldix, are decided on. On October 13 and October 18, the SEC will decide whether to approve Bitwise's and VanEck's proposal, respectively.

Read in full https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/39008/sec-chair-clayton-theres-work-left-to-be-done-on-bitcoin-etf/

@figmentofmyass. How many delays has it been? They have to accept and do something.

This might be the new storyboard. Offer bitcoin ETFs to the rich first and let them dump on the poor by offering it to them 5 years later hehehe.

meh, it's basically an admission by vaneck that a real ETF won't be approved anytime soon. they're giving up. as far as securities go, the only route the SEC is leaving open is the OTC market. that means no mainstream appeal and limited retail access.

@1Referee. Agreed. However, the SEC has not given its approval for VanEck and SolidX to let investors invest in a bitcoin ETF yet. But they might have found an ambiguity in the rules that might allow them to sell bitcoin ETFs to institutional investors only.

Pretty much, although I'm curious to see what fees they charge. Grayscale charges a whopping 2% annual fee to invest in GBTC. By comparison, the average ETF expense ratio is well under 0.5%. At significantly lower costs, a Vaneck "ETF-like product" could be more attractive to institutions.

Still, it's essentially an OTC product just like GBTC, though they're trying to paint it as something more:

No one can approve or reject Bitcoin. It hasn't ever needed any of that. This is what I like about Bitcoin. For the first time I can do things without asking for permission.

We'll get that that ETF one day, people just need to stop focusing on it. The longer it takes for these instruments to make it to the market, the longer you have to accumulate as many satoshis as possible at fair prices. Your fiat continues to lose purchasing power so it's not that you have all the time in the world to keep waiting.

As for the 'limited ETF', that's just a lame knock-off. The retailers should be allowed to buy into this ETF through their brokerage account, which isn't the case here. Institutions already play around with GBTC, which is similar to what Vaneck offers.

I told people that we are the ones that will still use our bare hands to destroy the perfect system that satoshi has created for us to be free from these governments, most especially the poor people and then break that gene of the rich keeps getting richer and poor keeps getting poorer, but we still using our hand to personally invite government by crying loud for .

if government even approve bitcoin today, we may still not get that mass adoption, because every decision to use cryptocurrency lies on the heart of the user, and you cannot force them to do or undo what they want. I prefer that e continue to grow slowly the way we have bee growing than to be waiting for one sec to approve ETF.

I can already buy a BTC holding in my pension as Iam the manager of it, the price quote is a bit flaky when I looked this year and previous so I never bothered.   I stuck it in gold because I thought that quite certain and solid, overall gold is not popular and I imagine BTC even less so but its a smaller market anyhow.  
   After all I have BTC anyhow but considering this years price rise I guess should have, still its not a pension type asset so I didnt but I dont doubt there are big company investors and speculators already in BTC.   We'd not be idling around 10,000 without some of this bigger money, its why I think dollar index, larger market moves do have an effect on BTC because some of this money market involvement is leveraged.


  Greater accessibility and trading in the market would no doubt cause BTC to break any medium term trend that might be holding it back.   We'd see a rise, its then debateable do we see actual greater participation and holdings of BTC but likely we would, just like Libra is going to have an effect on currency holdings should it proceed with a mixed currency basket.   It'll alter balance some and if its a growth trend then its big news even more.   If you introduce a million people or more to products they did not have on their menu previously, it'll make a splash in the market books for those products.

It is bringing something new to the table which is an example. This is an example for a full blown ETF and if it gets a lot of success and people are happy with it then those people who are able to use it and made money with it will brag about it to their friends (who are also rich people I assume but using other places) will ask for it from their own places and this will basically go like a wave affect where one stone creates many circles. That is why it is upmost importance that the people who will be able to use this limited version likes it and then makes money from it so that we can have the big version where everyone can join happens more quickly.

There is not enough pressure on SEC to accept it however if this turns out great then we can actually have a great pressure to SEC which will force their hand to accept.

In this case it doesn't really matter since the big money happens to be in the institutional accounts. I think it's even better because it gives retailers the incentive to storm into spot exchanges and buy there. People should take care of their own coins.

This will balance things out nicely until this ETF gets approved in full, which might figure out pretty soon with how this is the moment of truth. No more further delays. We have had too many of them already.

I still don't think that this event is enough to prevent the price from making lower lows. If we see a big selloff tomorrow that's probably a sign that some institutions have bought in before the event took place to sell the news.

Interesting approach, if somewhat anti-climactic. My gut reaction was "this brings nothing new to the table" since even non-accredited investors can trade some of Grayscale's products (GBTC, ETHE, ETCG) through their brokerage accounts. But conceivably, a product like this could end up being picked up by asset managers and packaged in retirement funds down the line, which is pretty huge. And like Bakkt, this could be an avenue by which institutional investors affect the spot market, since the ETF would be open-ended.

The skeptical me is thinking that a bitcoin ETF offered to ordinary investors is what the American government do not want. The government has always been a hurdle for ordinary people to prosper by blocking them from entering into more unfamiliar investments.

Is this what the SEC was planning from the beginning? Approve a bitcoin ETF limited only for the rich?



VanEck and SolidX bypass SEC by offering Bitcoin ETFs to accredited investors

Two investment companies whose Bitcoin ETF proposals have been delayed by the SEC have found a way around the tight regulations. In a joint statement, VanEck Securities Corp. and SolidX Management said they planned on launching a “limited version” of the BTC ETFs, only available to accredited investors.

After facing yet another delay on their joint Bitcoin exchange-traded-fund (ETF) proposal, asset management companies VanEck Securities Cop. and SolidX Management LLC found a way to bypass strict SEC regulations.

In a joint press release, the two companies announced that they plan on issuing a limited version of their originally planned Bitcoin ETF, only available to institutional investors.

According to The Wall Street Journal, VanEck and SolidX will sell shares in the VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust to qualified institutional buyers. In the statement, the companies said that the shares will be the first Bitcoin products for institutions that is cleared. It will act much like a traditional ETF, featuring the same creation-and-redemption process.

The companies were able to launch this unusual product thanks to an exemption in the law regulating securities in the U.S. The statement referenced Rule 144A of the 1933 Securities Act as the enabler of this offer. The rule specifically allows “privately placed securities” to be traded among “qualified institutional buyers” without having to register with the SEC.

Starting from Thursday, Sep. 5, the shares will be quoted on the OTC Link ATS, an alternative trading system directly regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Read in full https://cryptoslate.com/vaneck-solidx-bypass-sec-bitcoin-etf-accredited/

It wouldn't hurt bitcoin price, it wouldn't be bad for bitcoin, it would be just good for one company or two and may help us a bit more in the volume side but there is nothing else that would affect bitcoin. Don't get me wrong when I say it wouldn't be bad for bitcoin I do not mean it will be good for bitcoin, I am just saying it wouldn't be bad, it would basically be non factor in bitcoin price, maybe with volume it could provide a bit more stability but I doubt it will have that much volume so basically it has no affects on bitcoin at all.

I hope they would accept and let it be, I am not gonna argue that having it is worse than not having it, I would rather see how it works now then see it 15 years from now, let us get it working and we will improve along the way.

Everyone wants the SEC to approve the ETF because it can cause a big price increase. However, in my opinion, in the long run, it can be bad to Bitcoin. So for me, they can delay it forever.