Cryptocurrencies

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

Azerbajani gold exchange in the example: just ignore it it affects nothing.

 

Other have already told you about the recent price spike that happened on Binance and nowhere else. Only consider the serious exchanges for price

 

 I explained to you about signal - people DONT ignore the price on Binance….a crazy spike up like the one your hanging your theory on gets ignored everywhere and in every market…it happens occasionally in normal markets, you get a glitch…that spike wasn’t a washtrade it was a fat finger, it was glitch…..washtrading is never done in spikes as I explained already….it so close to real looking you’d barely notice but a market gets walked up by it….then as I just told you the average crypto market participant is a retail lamb, they have no idea about wash trading..…no idea how the price they see might on a screen how it could possibly not be real…how do I know I’ve talked to a lot of them and their eyes glaze over.

 

Now but I just gave you another really really great reason why a spot ETF is not happening in my last post……cause even if Coinbase had 99% of the BTC volume….the SEC is shocked & repulsed by the basic market structure itself….where exchanges are simultaneously brokers, custodians, and asset managers. That alone @wachtwoord is a red card….then just sprinkle the Binance fake volume mkt share on top…..you’ve got two red cards.

Edited June 24, 2023 by changegonnacome

[wachtwoord]

11 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

 I explained to you about signal - people DONT ignore the price on Binance….a crazy spike up like the one your hanging your theory on gets ignored everywhere and in every market…it happens occasionally in normal markets, you get a glitch…that spike wasn’t a washtrade it was a fat finger, it was glitch…..washtrading is never done in spikes as I explained already….it so close to real looking you’d barely notice but a market gets walked up by it….then as I just told you the average crypto market participant is a retail lamb, they have no idea about wash trading..…no idea how the price they see might on a screen how it could possibly not be real…how do I know I’ve talked to a lot of them and their eyes glaze over.

 

Now but I just gave you another really really great reason why a spot ETF is not happening in my last post……cause even if Coinbase had 99% of the BTC volume….the SEC is shocked & repulsed by the basic market structure itself….where exchanges are simultaneously brokers, custodians, and asset managers. That alone @wachtwoord is a red card….then just sprinkle the Binance fake volume mkt share on top…..you’ve got two red cards.

 

Anyone that matters ignores Binance.

[changegonnacome]

53 minutes ago, wachtwoord said:

Anyone that matters ignores Binance.

 

My grandma wouldn’t know to ignore Binance. This is who this ETF is opening the door too. That’s the problem….as I’ve explained.

But frankly your point lacks evidence..…the price movements on Binance are mirrored with almost a 100% correlation on other exchanges….excepting your recent outrageous spike glitch that you somehow think proves your case but doesn’t..…..so the 60%+ volume player that the SEC has accused of fake trades and you say is ignored…..is actually perfectly correlated in terms price movements on Coinbase…..it’s clear that Binance walks the BTC market up and it walks it down at will.

[SharperDingaan]

All markets are inherently risky, it is part of the cost of participation; you hope the goods/services are as they appear (or advertised), and that the price is ‘real’ (not fixed, or ‘pumped’). You use the market because you need the goods/services &/or the liquidity, it is more effective/efficient than alternatives; and it is your choice, at all times, to walk away (i.e.: you are responsible for your actions). BTC is just another such market.

 

If you don’t know the market, you assign a market expert to do the buying/selling for you; a trusted mechanic if buying a used car, a jeweler if buying precious metals, accredited investment professionals if buying BTC. The price paid (ETF management expense ratio) for their agency is insurance, against getting taken; not infallible, but practical.

 

Markets contribute wealth; very big markets get state protection, for a cut of the prize. Piracy/bad actors have always existed, and navy’s/state apparatus have always been used to suppress/eliminate; the benefit from greater trust/confidence in the market exceeding the cost of the security ‘cut’. BTC also benefits the ‘wrong kind of people’, with different tools; it is to everyone’s interest to play nice, and play the long-term game.

 

It is not hard to eliminate sources from the reference rate, mandate a ‘haircut’ to the reference price, &/or require purchase of a minimum daily state offered put on the reference price. As with any other insurance, the insurer (state) collects the losses … then uses its full power to collect from the perpetrator.

 

Net of mitigation, grandma gets to buy her BTC-ETF with about the same risk as any other higher risk company (where pump and dump is also routine) trading on the Nasdaq/NYSE. A BTC-ETF is just one more choice amongst many with similar market risk.

 

A BTC-ETF is not going to have the same risk as an Exxon, or a Chase Manhattan; but if it has a comparable risk to a Goldman Sachs, and cannot be bought without passing a KYC screen, it becomes an entirely different thing. Hard to see how it doesn’t happen.

 

Of course, if you insist upon looking like, or acting like a pirate/bad actor, life might be different for you.

We live in interesting times.

 

SD

[changegonnacome]

The best source of this stuff of course is the BlackRock BTC-ETF S1 where they are ultimately forced to admit all this stuff in the risks section in the application....and the risks section is ultimately a list of reasons why the SEC will reject the application for the reason that the spot market in BTC is deeply deeply flawed & poses a serious risk to US retail investors whom couldn't be expected to know that the price on the screen they are seeing could be fake and ultimately a function of at least two frauds hiding in plain site (1) Wash Trading on the largest exchange Binance (2) Tether/stablecoin Fraud 

 

Here are some of fav risks taken directly from the S1:

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923017574/bit20230608_s1.htm#riskfact 

 

Wash Trading & Market Manipulation:

 

 

Quote

 

"Digital assets may have concentrated ownership and large sales or distributions by holders of such digital assets could have an adverse effect on the market price of such digital assets.

 

The largest bitcoin wallets are believed to hold, in aggregate, a significant percentage of the bitcoins in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of bitcoins, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of bitcoin."

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

"The market price of bitcoin may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including:

●

trading activity on digital asset exchanges, which, in many cases, are largely unregulated or may be subject to manipulation;

 

 

Quote

Due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of digital asset exchanges, they may experience fraud, security failures or operational problems, which may adversely affect the value of bitcoin and, consequently, the value of the Shares.

 

Digital asset exchanges do not appear to be subject to, or may not comply with, regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in digital asset exchanges, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of bitcoin trading.Many digital asset exchanges are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset exchanges is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset exchanges was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the digital asset exchange market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the digital asset exchange market than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the digital asset exchange market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of bitcoin and/or negatively affect the market perception of bitcoin.

 

Tether Stablecoin Ponzi Fraud Risk :

 

Quote

 

Prices of bitcoin may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin ("USDC")), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the bitcoin market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that, when the stablecoin is used to pay for bitcoin, could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for bitcoin, artificially inflating the price of bitcoin, and also argue that those associated with certain stablecoins may be involved in laundering money. On February 17, 2021 the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue.

 

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including bitcoin), or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as exchanges, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the bitcoin market, and affect the value of bitcoin, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares.

 

 

[changegonnacome]

35 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

Hard to see how it doesn’t happen.

 

I'll take the other side of that. I would say its hard to see how it happens.

 

Look forward to seeing what happens & returning here to get the post-mortem when this and Fidelity etf is rejected

[alxcii]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I'll take the other side of that. I would say its hard to see how it happens.

 

Look forward to seeing what happens & returning here to get the post-mortem when this and Fidelity etf is rejected

 

You seem so confident, want to bet? I'll give you 2% odds of approval settled in BTC - free money since you think it's 0%.

[changegonnacome]

5 minutes ago, alxcii said:

You seem so confident, want to bet? I'll give you 2% odds of approval settled in BTC - free money since you think it's 0%.

 

Absolutely I'll take that deal all day long - how much will you let me get into this wager? It is indeed free money. Im interested in as much as possible.

[alxcii]

7 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Absolutely I'll take that deal all day long - how much will you let me get into this wager? It is indeed free money. Im interested in as much as possible.

 

With a bet this asymmetric my concern is whether I will actually get paid out should I win if the stakes are high enough. On crypto twitter I've seen people use a neutral third party to custody the funds until the bet is resolved. On this forum only @Parsad may be able to serve as that person, but I doubt he wants to get involved.

 

Your word against mine, I would commit 0.001 BTC vs your 0.049 BTC for winners purse of 0.05 BTC. If you know of a good way to structure this with minimal trust assumptions I'm all ears. We could settle in USD as well and I'm willing to go up to $20K to win $980K.

[changegonnacome]

45 minutes ago, alxcii said:

With a bet this asymmetric my concern is whether I will actually get paid out should I win if the stakes are high enough. On crypto twitter I've seen people use a neutral third party to custody the funds until the bet is resolved. On this forum only @Parsad may be able to serve as that person, but I doubt he wants to get involved.

 

Your word against mine, I would commit 0.001 BTC vs your 0.049 BTC for winners purse of 0.05 BTC. If you know of a good way to structure this with minimal trust assumptions I'm all ears. We could settle in USD as well and I'm willing to go up to $20K to win $980K.

 

Nice lesson in counterparty risk & trust services for you @alxcii....think your starting to get to understand how the financial services regulatory structure we have today evolved for very good reasons..........and its good you know about the power of trusted third parties....who can provide custody & settlement services.......between people who don't know each other....its very very appropriate for our regulatory discussion and good lesson why the BTC ETF approval is a crypto pipe dream ..........& that the SEC could never approve a spot ETF in BTC where an exchange that does 60%+ of the volume of BTC is simultaneously & under the SAME roof an exchange, a broker, providing trust services and a clearing house functions all while being a custodian of the same assets. For anyone who works markets - the structure is preposterous & to the SEC looking at it its laughable.....so the BlackRock ETF will join the what 20 or 30 other BTC ETF applications in the rejection bin. 

 

Anyway the complexity & you attempting to pull people into our little bet has already made me infinitely less interesting. How about this for a simple wager - I'll send you a $100 if the BlackRock BTC ETF gets approved! Simples. I don't want a single penny/satoshi from you......you now have no counterparty risk as you are not putting up any money.....you are wagering nothing......you stand to lose nothing.....it's all upside and no downside for you......and all downside and no upside for me. What a great deal. It achieves the same point....which is I'm beyond confident that I will never need to send you the $100 so i consider it a riskless bet for me too.......and I just solved your trust and counterparty problem to boot....without a blockchain being involved!

 

I look forward to waiting for the BlackRock ETF SEC rejection.

[SharperDingaan]

Keep in mind ....

 

SEC approval of a US BTC-ETF is a time-horizon thing. Some folks are 'sure' than over the 'short-term', the SEC is going to reject this sucker. Others are 'sure' that over the 'long-term', SEC approval is inevitable. Purely difference of opinion, and both might be right; nothing wrong in that 

 

Canada already has a BTC-ETF trading on the TSX, and it also has an active option market on the MSX. To date the implementation concerns have not been a concern/issue, and there is no reason to expect any change over the next year or so. Sure - but this is in Canada, not the US; and not the same thing.

 

Regulators test Innovation in small markets first - 'cause if it blows up, the sh1te is easily containable; e-Krone in Sweden to test out CBDC, BTC-ETF in Canada to test out implementation. Canadian financial regulation is amongst the most resilient in the world, and Canada has long been a champion of todays technology since day-1.

 

Everyone who already owns BTC, or the BTC-ETF plus its option market, already has this bet. If the SEC approves BlackRock, the BTC-ETF very likely trades higher; if the SEC rejects - the puts very likely go in the money. OK, it's Canadian Peso's ...  but one can only do so much!

 

The SEC may well just punt the decision for a few months (for research/training purposes), then come back to it as the climate/inflation/economy allows. In the meantime there are lots of better venues by which to place your bets, and across multiple time horizons as well.

 

We're in the camp that no-matter-what we win; we just need a large enough disruption. But looking out over the remaining time to the 100th anniversary of The Securities Act (2033), an approval at some point seems pretty inevitable; as long as there are no major blowups - it's really more a matter of when, not if.

 

Hence, we live in interesting times; and it's a great time in finance to be a young person.

 

SD

Edited June 25, 2023 by SharperDingaan

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said:

SEC approval of a US BTC-ETF is a time-horizon thing

 

Time horizon sure but really it's a market structure thing........tell me when the BTC market structure gets 'fixed' and I'll tell you the time horizon for SEC approval. To go mainstream you really do need CZ, tether & his offshore cabal to blow themselves up.......if I was a BTC maxi.....its really this that's required for your dreams to come true on it becoming digital gold or currency that competes with the dollar....without a blow-up its a very slow roll such that the US or EU players become dominant players in terms of volume twinned with discreet BTC exchanges, custodians & brokers. 

 

Right now the BTC market remains a frontier market.....straight out of the pages of a 1920's financial markets history book....it's almost laughable how this space broadly defined as crypto is running through every foible of financial markets seen a 100 yrs ago...."history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce"....this is most definitely farce happening right now.....a 100 yrs ago people could have been forgiven for the problems that arose once you create a security from a common enterprise and sell it to strangers.......1929 collapse was a tragedy.....but we got blue sky securities laws, the separation of exchanges, custodians, brokers, clearing houses, disclosures requirements etc. ....this time is most definitely a farce..............the only thing that's different is the distribution of the scams being digital as opposed to analog & the dissemination of the narrative or story being done via social media.

 

1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said:

The SEC may well just punt the decision for a few months (for research/training purposes), then come back to it as the climate/inflation/economy allows.

 

There will be no punting here - the SEC in the Coinbase & Binance complaint has turned its crypto cards over for everyone to see....that is why I keep saying that to approve the BTC-ETF would be completely inconsistent with their recent findings against those two entities........I'm not sure if crypto fans ever go to source documents.....I suspect they never do and information/news gets to them filtered/distorted by their YouTube algo & twitter follows.......if your interested in this space you've got to go to the horse's mouth & trust me the horse is screaming....."this BTC SHIT is never getting into the heart of our capital markets without a serious market structure overhaul"

 

Anyway I've enjoyed chatting with folks here, I'll come back fro debrief after the Blackrock BTC-ETF rejection - lets see how it plays out.......I'm very tempted to take some kind of short position here against Coinbase......its clear a lot of delusion exists in this space re: recent regulatory action....which explains the COIN share price resilience.....my only reservation is the wise rule never to short cults.....but it certainly feels like a moment where its been revealed that the emperor has no clothes....but the court jesters are yet to turn around and see him naked.

Edited June 25, 2023 by changegonnacome

[alxcii]

11 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Nice lesson in counterparty risk & trust services for you @alxcii....think your starting to get to understand how the financial services regulatory structure we have today evolved for very good reasons..........and its good you know about the power of trusted third parties....who can provide custody & settlement services.......between people who don't know each other....its very very appropriate for our regulatory discussion and good lesson why the BTC ETF approval is a crypto pipe dream ..........& that the SEC could never approve a spot ETF in BTC where an exchange that does 60%+ of the volume of BTC is simultaneously & under the SAME roof an exchange, a broker, providing trust services and a clearing house functions all while being a custodian of the same assets. For anyone who works markets - the structure is preposterous & to the SEC looking at it its laughable.....so the BlackRock ETF will join the what 20 or 30 other BTC ETF applications in the rejection bin. 

 

Anyway the complexity & you attempting to pull people into our little bet has already made me infinitely less interesting. How about this for a simple wager - I'll send you a $100 if the BlackRock BTC ETF gets approved! Simples. I don't want a single penny/satoshi from you......you now have no counterparty risk as you are not putting up any money.....you are wagering nothing......you stand to lose nothing.....it's all upside and no downside for you......and all downside and no upside for me. What a great deal. It achieves the same point....which is I'm beyond confident that I will never need to send you the $100 so i consider it a riskless bet for me too.......and I just solved your trust and counterparty problem to boot....without a blockchain being involved!

 

I look forward to waiting for the BlackRock ETF SEC rejection.

 

I sincerely hope you don't bet your beliefs because you would go broke in the long run. You keep harping on the offshore volume as if that's the only thing that matters, but you miss the nuance in this situation. A couple of SEC commissioners can tell it better than I can:

https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-uyeda-statement-vaneck-bitcoin-trust-031023
 

We believe that the Commission’s decision to subject spot bitcoin-based ETPs to a bespoke standard that may be impossible for any product to meet has harmed investors by making it harder for the bitcoin market to mature through institutionalization and easier, and potentially safer, retail investor access.[16] But our concern is not just with bitcoin. If we use the test in other markets, we will prevent other products from coming to market. Had we applied the test to other commodity-based ETPs, they might not be trading today. Arbitrarily depriving investors of access to products does not protect them. Consistent application of the standards Congress gave us does.

 

Importantly, the Commission is required by law to provide an explanation for any change to its policy regarding the approval of commodity-based ETPs.[17] According to the Supreme Court, it would be “arbitrary and capricious” for an agency to enact a new policy that rests upon factual findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy without providing a reasoned explanation.[18] Additionally, the “requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation for its action would ordinarily demand that it display awareness that it is changing position.”[19] Here, the Commission has crafted a new standard for determining whether a futures market is “significant.” Not only has the Commission failed to provide an explanation for the change, but it has failed even to acknowledge that there has been a change.[20]

 

Because we believe that spot bitcoin ETPs should be subject to the same standards the Commission has used for every other type of commodity-based ETP and because we believe the poorly designed test being used here is not fit for purpose and will inhibit innovation—and thereby harm investors—in our markets, we dissent.

Peirce and Uyeda dissented even without VanEck having an SSA. Do we have what it takes now?

 

a) A comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with

b) a regulated market of significant size related to spot bitcoin

 

Yes to a), maybe to b). What is considered significant size? If you focus on exchanges with USD onramps or BTC-USD pairs, Coinbase would be considered a significant market. They narrowed the scope with regards to futures before so it's not that farfetched.

 

What about the Grayscale lawsuit? Rao and Srinivasan seem skeptical of the SEC's arguments, it doesn't look like an open and shut case to me. Maybe that the SEC might lose triggered the rush of filings we've seen.

 

I don't have anything else to say on this - they may not approve, but 0% chance is obviously a severe miscalibration.

 

 

 

 

 

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, alxcii said:

You keep harping on the offshore volume

 

Nope I keep harping on about onshore market structure too but your choosing to ignore that......like I said previously and to remove the offshore piece your stuck on.......in a theoretical world where Coinbase is doing 100% of the BTC volume.........the BTC ETF still DOESNT get approved by the SEC......Why? Cause the SEC would never approve a spot ETF in anything with a market structure like we have today in crypto land - where an exchange, broker, custodian and in some cases an asset manager in the market are the EXACT same entity..........it just so happens that right now you can add to the mix that the LARGEST exchange, broker, custodian by btc volume (Binance) is both offshore and a criminal enterprise that owns ~60%+ of the volume & has just been accused by the SEC of fraud & non-existent controls..

 

You can't make it up in the context of believing the exact same SEC who wrote the compliant against Coinbase & Binance is gonna turn around and approve a spot btc ETF People who think that have lost their mind IMO....but that's what happens in cult-like delusions....or in a scenario where you get all your news filtered by crypto promoters/shills on twitter/youtube/telegram/discord/

 

Listen BlackRock/iShares almost has a fiduciary duty to it shareholders to attempt to be the first ETF in this space...they would be shot if they didn't try........that's why they've done it....even if the probability of approval is like 0.1%.....gaining approval for a novel ETF the first of its kind in any new space/sector......is like creating a perpetual money machine it's a worth a shot even if the odds are terrible....the upside is just so juicy you can't NOT do it.........an ETF is a classic example of scaled economies shared or network effects business......nobody can compete with the scale of SPX or VOO......grabbing AUM in the ETF biz & pulling away in terms of scale basically creates as perfect a moat as you can design......BlackRock/iShares had to take a shot at it......the fact it came out after the Coinbase/Binance ruling.....is more a function of odds & timing.

 

Odds and timing? What do ya mean?

 

This space is in the process of getting taken to the woodshed......it's only getting worse from here...see I was thinking more about why BlackRock and Fidelity submitted these ETF applications now and it dawned on me the simple explanation.....they HAD to submit now...........the nature of discovery in these SEC cases moving forward against Coinbase & Binance means WORSE information is gonna come out about the deep deep deep fundamental flaws in the spot BTC market soon......you see......as I said in my earlier posts BlackRock has been working on this ETF application for at least 24-36 months.......so think about this in terms of a bet with odds by BlackRock.........the approval odds, post Coinbase/Binance compliant, just went down by ALOT.....ok but why submit the application right after the SEC complaint.......guess if your a conspiracy theorist you say they are working with the government to 'take back' BTC, that TradFi is trying to kill crypto players like CZ and steal all the profits for itself ........NONSENSE......it's simply because the odds of a BTC ETF approval aren't going to get BETTER with time, they are getting WORSE alot worse...Why worse? Cause the odds are going to keep dropping as the Coinbase & BInance cases move forward on the discovery front.....BlackRock & Fidelity are being rational here......they are dealing with sunk ETF application R&D investment costs.......the odds of a BTC ETF approval are slipping by the minute, by the second.....the curtain is going to get pulled back further on BTC land as the SEC cases move forward.....it is not pretty.

 

BlackRock and Fidelity are rational actors.......the best time for a US spot BTC ETF application was 18 months ago.....the next best time is today........and next year it will be worse. That's why they pumped these application out the door so quickly....they did the math......the approval odds are terrible......but they are getting worse with every moment.....so they hit SEND.

 

I mean I can't make it more simple than that....and we just had a wonderful demonstration around our ill fated bet between two people who dont know each other..... which is very much a market/counterparty problem......imagine if my response to your wager counterparty risk conundrum was the following......hey @alxcii dont worry bro on the wager, trust ME.....I'll custody ALL our proposed wager money just send it all to me.......I'll also provide trust services and decide who won the bet when the time comes.....such that I'll also do all the settlement & clearing of the bet to make sure the winner gets the money the right amount of money......you'd rightly tell me to go JUMP.......well what I just described there is Coinbase, Binance and the whole BTC market structure......and its why the SEC will tell BlackRock to go JUMP on this ETF.

 

Anyway I'm defo done here now solving & explaining the mysterious case of the BlackRock/Fidelity BTC ETF applications. I suspect I'm spot on....but I would say that  .

 

Catch ya when the news breaks on the ETF approval/rejection.....and I'm a man of my word.......one hundred big ones for you if either of them get approved.

 

Best - Change 

Edited June 25, 2023 by changegonnacome

[SharperDingaan]

Quick search for US BTC-ETF's this morning .....

It would seem that the only things new here are (1) a spot BTC-ETF, and (2) mainstream 'legitimacy' of a Blackrock & Fidelity. The SEC pushed past the 'idea' of a BTC-ETF trading on the US markets, some time ago.  

 

While the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved multiple bitcoin futures ETFs, it has yet to approve a spot bitcoin ETF despite receiving numerous applications. 

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/06/26/us-has-room-for-a-compliant-crypto-etf-to-grow-market-share-as-a-bitcoin-on-ramp-bernstein/

 

This is a list of all Bitcoin ETFs traded in the USA which are currently tagged by ETF Database. Please note that the list may not contain newly issued ETFs. If you’re looking for a more simplified way to browse and compare ETFs, you may want to visit our ETF Database Categories, which categorize every ETF in a single “best fit” category. ttps://etfdb.com/themes/bitcoin-etfs/

 

SD

Edited June 26, 2023 by SharperDingaan

[Dave86ch]

In the meantime

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-27/hsbc-offers-trading-in-crypto-etfs-to-customers-in-hong-kong#xj4y7vzkg

[SharperDingaan]

Additional news ...

 

"The original crypto coin has leapt 20% to two-month highs at $30,182 over the past 11 days after BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, revealed hopes for a spot bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) in the United States.

 

Fueling optimism among some crypto advocates is BlackRock’s strong track record of getting the SEC’s green light for ETFs more generally, although it hasn’t filed for a crypto one before. It boasts a 575-1 approval rate, according to Rosenblatt Securities analyst Andrew Bond.

 

Since the BlackRock filing, Invesco and WisdomTree have also reapplied for spot bitcoin ETFs after they had previous applications rejected by the regulator.

 

The mini-rush of pitches to the U.S. watchdog comes days after the SEC sued major crypto exchanges Coinbase and Binance for allegedly breaking securities laws, casting a chill over the cryptocurrency market. At present, American investors currently looking to gain exposure to crypto on stock exchanges are limited to futures-based ETFs. These funds track bitcoin futures contracts, which come with the additional costs of rolling over contracts on settlement days."

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/investment-ideas/article-bitcoin-bounces-on-blackrock-buzz/

 

It would appear that a new regime is quietly being proposed/implemented. It is going to start with a 'bang', and it is not going to a big leap from what is already in place. May we all do well!

 

SD

[Castanza]

https://www.reuters.com/technology/sec-says-spot-bitcoin-etf-filings-are-inadequate-wsj-2023-06-30/

 

The saga continues

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Castanza said:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/sec-says-spot-bitcoin-etf-filings-are-inadequate-wsj-2023-06-30/

 

The saga continues

 

"June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has said recent applications by asset managers to launch spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) were not sufficiently clear and comprehensive, a source familiar with the matter said."

 

Of course the ETF proposals arent clear.....the BTC market is a muddy mess its hard to get around that in a S1 disclosure document where your legally required to disclose the reality truthfully.........and there's no way they can put in place comprehensive surveillance structures - how could they be - the underlying spot market is opaque at best.....a vipers nest at worst.....there's no amount of fancy surveillance structures you could put in place to have any comfort level around a free and fair market in BTC. The whole market structure would need to be torn down and re-built as per my earlier posts.

 

The problem for the crypto industry is its got its often requested regulatory clarity.........it was there previously for anyone paying attention........this most recent enforcement against Coin/Binance just put that clarity right under everyones noses in the industry with no where left to hide....basically...crypto got its regulatory clarity.......it didn't like answer...........so they've unleashed the PR flying monkeys to attempt to dress up the last few years of illegal securities offerings as some kind of regulatory fog of war stuff.

 

Its hilarious to watch & nobody even the supposed 'good guys' (Coin/Gemini/kraken) are coming out of this looking good. They all couldn't keep their grubby fingers away from getting into the ilegal securities offerings game......and they all tarnished themselves in doing so.

Edited June 30, 2023 by changegonnacome

[wachtwoord]

In the past SEC would postpone to the last possible date, use all possible extensions and then reject non-constructively. Now it gives feedback early and constructively. Most of the proposals have refiled a correction already.

 

A very positive development. It looks like, for the first time, SEC is actually considering to accept these. 

[SharperDingaan]

3 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

A very positive development. It looks like, for the first time, SEC is actually considering to accept these. 

 

The pro-active stance also indicates (1) modernization is high on the list, and (2) crypto segregated into two markets. Mainstream (Nasdaq, NYSE, etc.) access via segregated custodianship/pricing references (modern version of the London gold fix), experienced/knowledgeable on-ramps (Blackrock, Fidelity, etc.), KYC control, etc. - give up some privacy for the greater efficiency/effectiveness. Offshore markets (Binance) for the Alt-Coin, NFT's, innovation, low quality crypto; little different to the deliberate segregation between junior/senior exchanges, that already exists in most public markets. Market solution to a market problem.

 

Big question is whether the existing crowdfunding market (GoDaddy, etc.), falls into the same regulatory bucket as the offshore market. Domestic crowdfund > mainstream offshore crypto innovation > mainstream Nasdaq/NYSE; or domestic crowdfund > domestic junior exchange > mainstream offshore crypto innovation > mainstream Nasdaq/NYSE. Most would argue that domestic crowdfunding and VC financing are quite different, and should be treated differently.

 

We live in interesting times.

 

SD

 

   

[james22]

 

[Longnose]

As a biology nerd and a crypto fan. I found this discussion much more entertaining than I expected.

 

[jfan]

On 7/8/2023 at 11:14 PM, Longnose said:

As a biology nerd and a crypto fan. I found this discussion much more entertaining than I expected.

 

Thanks @Longnose That was a really interesting perspective. I purchased the entangled life book. Seems promising.

 

On a side note, I find it amusing that the law firm representing the GBTC lawsuit against the SEC, is none other than Munger, Tolles & Olsen. 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

16 hours ago, jfan said:

Thanks @Longnose That was a really interesting perspective. I purchased the entangled life book. Seems promising.

 

On a side note, I find it amusing that the law firm representing the GBTC lawsuit against the SEC, is none other than Munger, Tolles & Olsen. 

 

  Hilarious. Who'd have thought?!?!