Topic: Winkelvoss ETP could become THE pricing mechanism for BTC - page 5. (Read 15387 times)

Anonymity allows for free speech. Privacy affords liberation from coercion/blackmail.

Each are valuable.

NewLiberty is talking here about facts and possibilities, which really could happen to the bitcoin.

the fact is, that bitcoin is a thread to an established system (investment=>banking=>government, or whatever you name it), and there will be not approved anything, what makes bitcoin (&co) even more powerful against existing apparatus, so to say.
almost sure at some point the situation will be exactly the opposite - nothing good for bitcoin, if not fatal.
this is very simple logic.

in my opinion such legal ETFs and further integration of bitcoin in existing system is (almost) the only way to control it. then there will be no need to shut down the network, which actually is impossible to shut down. the bitcoin (or any successor of it) just will be controlled in a very decent way, that's all.

we should do not even dream that all subjects for who bitcoin is a pain in the ass, are complete brainless dicks, right?

Not everybody has the same technical skills, motivations, and ideology as you.  That doesn't make them shitbags or stupid.

And no, I won't be selling my bitcoin to buy shares.  But I am able to step outside of my little world and see how it might be useful for many people for many different reasons.  The fact that you are unwilling or unable to see any of these as anything but stupid shows just how narrow minded you are.

People like you give anarchy a bad name.  You are trying to act like an authority when you say your way is the only way.

you have everyones attention now.

It suits my purposes.  Everyone is ignorant, just about different things.  I'm no exception.  Driven by curiosity, I read the public information about this and am using this thread to discover whether I've misunderstood something. If the WBT ETF is ultimately successfully launched, I may have something that will greatly improve it, and enhance its usefulness and marketability to a point where almost everyone here will celebrate its existence.

This is why I don't get into arguments over details with these shitbags. If they want to buy "shares" of bitcoins when its easier to just buy the actual thing, I'd rather just call them out for how stupid the general concept is.

My understanding was never amiss on this, though I've been quoted out of context in order to make it appear that it was.
(I did maintain the "20% backing" descriptor as used by molecular without correcting it on first use to keep the response in context.)  I agree it would have been a good point to work out definitions of what "backing" means, because it looks to have led to some confusion by others further in the thread, though it seemed to be getting off the point at the time, as it does now as well.  
I trust this is better understood by everyone now?  The huge difference between 100% backing by .2 Bitcoin and 20% backing per share which merits all this recrimination?

You've misread.  I never said 20% backing, just 20% pershare.  (They are 100% backed by .2 Bitcoin at the outset.)  This decreases over time under .2 as the trust pays expenses.

That is right in the table of contents / summary on Page 3:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1579346/000119312513279830/d562329ds1.htm
The Trust expects to create and redeem the Shares from time to time, but only in one or more whole Baskets (a Basket equals a block of [50,000] Shares). The creation and redemption of Baskets require the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the number of Bitcoins represented by the Baskets being created or redeemed, the amount of which will be based on the combined NAV of the number of Shares included in the Baskets being created or redeemed. The initial number of Bitcoins required for deposit with the Trust to create Shares is [10,000] per Basket. The number of Bitcoins required to create a Basket, or to be delivered upon the redemption of a Basket, will gradually decrease over time, due to the accrual of the Trust’s expenses, the transfer of the Trust’s Bitcoins to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and the transfer of the Trust’s Bitcoins to pay any Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor. See “Business of the Trust—Trust Expenses.”

This is further documented all through the S-1.  This should not be a point of confusion.

Your insisting on a 20% backing makes it unlikely you even read the S-1

I've supplied support for all of them with quotes from the S-1.  If you have something to support the opposite, please share.  I'm not here to grind any axes, just to discuss this and learn if something I am looking at is not what it seems.  If it is not as I have written, I would appreciate learning otherwise.

From my perspective, your insistence on these kinds of points has developed to where it's no longer productive for me to debate them any further. It looks like you and I will disagree pretty strongly on matters of fact as well as on implications from those facts, but that's OK.

What this means, is that the investors are not going to be getting any real Bitcoins for the ETF shares they are holding, meltdown or not.  It doesn't matter how many try.

If they were Authorized Participants, they could get a fractional percentage of the bitcoin assets in the trust by paying a fee, and redeeming a basket of 50K shares.  They would get 10K bitcoins minus the amount of bitcoins the trust spends to operate apportioned across the baskets, or thereabouts.  Investors can only sell the ETF for whatever folks thing its worth.
The catch is, the trust can swap out for those bitcoins redeemed without notice for fiat, without notice at any time.  So even the AP might get no bitcoin out.
This isn't unusual, most all ETF are like this.  For most, no one would care that they get paid cash instead.  For alternative currency ETF it can defeat the purpose of the investment (currency/gold/silver/bitcoin)

Yeah, and so are mine!

They are 100% backed.

Holy fucking christ, there sure are some naive people on here. Please read some fucking history. Or tell you what, I'll sell you shares of my bitcoins - 5% off!!

In addition, one of the lubricants that keeps ETFs in general running smoothly is the 'Authorized Participant'; earlier in this thread, there's a discussion about how shares are created or redeemed via the APs, who either hand over large blocks of the underlying entity in exchange for shares, or who hand over large blocks of shares in exchange for the underlying entity. Ordinary investors trade shares, but they don't engage in the redemption or creation process.

They're 100% backed.

I hope im understanding this correct.

If you can get all of your Bitcoin ETF´s converted to bitcoin, but there only is 20 % backing by actual bitcions. I that not a problem?

In the event that some global economic meltdown happens, and a lot of the investors (let say 30 %) deside to get real Bitcoins for the ETF´s they are holding, then we would have an equivalence of a bank run?