Topic: Will The Bitcoin Investment Trust affect the price? - page 10. (Read 16830 times)

...may want to reevaluate your criteria for defining someone as "bright"

No worries there. A pass-through can't work because dirt poor redneck Texas wife-beaters can't qualify for the trust. 

"Mark Murphy, a SecondMarket spokesman, said the fund had heard from financial professionals, technology figures, gold enthusiasts and others.

“There’s really high interest,” said Murphy, who said there is no goal as far as the size of the fund."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/26/new-investment-venture-targets-1-5-billion-bitcoin-market/

I'd reviewed that, and am still looking.  Arbitrary rules give a political smell which tends to wrinkle my nose.  Either that or their list in (i) is just an attempt to make it very easy for them.
It looks specifically designed to remove MtGox?  I just don't think it is what I seek.

Simple price and volume math based on clean data from as many different sources without excluding so many of where the volume is would be ideal.
I don't see a clear reason not to bring in Localbitcoin, Gox and all the smaller and country specific exchanges as well.

Chart looks beautiful.

and here we go up !     

i ha'd, paused, and ha'd again

but on topic, i think the Winklevii offering will get red taped until regulators have had a better time to feel out/define the BTCspace. The SecondMarket offering does move this process along a few years, will give empirical evidence to guide regulation in the future hopefully..

http://www.coindesk.com/price/ Has a nice API and some agreeable rules for defining the BPI (Bitcoin price index)

This ^

Sure, X is what gets used in front of non government currencies.  Don't have to tell me that.
I even added that to the Wikipedia article on the ISO 4217 myself 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217
XBT  isn't in the standard yet, but as it is in use (as well as XAG for silver and XAU for gold).
Goat was there with the assist by catching it and suggesting the 8 decimal designation.
My understanding is that the Litecoin Foundation is contemplating making use of XLT or LTC for some things.

The question is as user705 succinctly put it, from whence comes the pricing data.
Volume weighted averages are good because so much happens off the exchanges, which for a long time was dominated by Gox, but not so much at the moment.

I am struggling with this issue currently for my http://Http://coldhardca.sh (backing bitcoin with silver and gold) project.

link please.  Where are they pulling pricing data from?

There's no SEC S-1 filing for this.  It is a PRIVATE offering.

It may grow up into an ETF someday, but they get the first mover advantage for all of us accredited investors as we won't have to wait for Winklevoss ETF.
I don't know that it opens the door to the IRA investment yet, still researching that.

This is a good thing.
We who work with bitcoin, and use bitcoin or develop for it are not their market.  Not at all, but this opens a different market that most of us would not be interested in participating in because we do know how to do it ourselves and don't need what they are offering.

Consider your typical accredited investor.  We have tax lawyers keeping us safe and finding ways to do things the legal way, we have different types of investments, diversity is highly valued.  Using Second Market provides a tidy way for the tax lawyers and accountants to deal with the investment.

This helps to legitimize a bitcoin investment.  It puts in in the basket of FaceBook and Twitter.  So it is good for Bitcoin, generally.

They are not filing an S-1 with the SEC, but they are using boilerplate from the standard ETF filing.  The Winklevoss twins are forging ahead with that alone still. 
https://searchwww.sec.gov/EDGARFSClient/jsp/EDGAR_MainAccess.jsp?search_text=Bitcoin&sort=Date&formType=FormS1

There are dangers as well.  For example if this BIT fund ever DOES become the Bloomberg ticker for Bitcoin, if it becomes the default pricing mechanism for determining Bitcoin value, there are significant risks associated with that for Bitcoin generally. 

Finally there's an investment vehicle on this forum that won't result in masses of people here losing all their Bitcoins because only a few can afford to invest in it.

I dont see any reason why the ETF should not be approved.  The SEC has approved many double and triple leveraged long and short ETFs for indices, precious metals, ect.  These ETFs are almost guaranteed to lose value over long periods of time, especially the inverse ETFs.  Bitcoin should be much safer. 

It's an open-ended trust, which means ongoing purchases.  It doesn't matter too much either way.  Others will follow in their footsteps.

WOW thx

only its not. and so you don't have to wait years for SEC approval

Don't be so sure about that. Take a look at page 12 (Security).

I know 2% annual rate and a 1.5% front AND backend fee (yes I checked, DOES apply) is not considered insane in the investment world. Many funds charge fees this high. I consider it insane that these fees are not considered insane however

At least Graham agrees with me