SEC Rejects Valkyrie, Kryptoin Bitcoin Trusts (reuters.com) 36
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission vetoed two proposals to offer bitcoin exchange-traded funds, dealing a blow to market participants who had hoped the agency would green light the effort after approving futures-backed bitcoin funds in October. From a report: In a notice dated Wednesday, the markets regulator said both of the proposals to list and trade shares of Valkyrie Bitcoin Fund and the Kryptoin Bitcoin ETF Trust failed to be approved because they did not meet its standard. "(These proposals) do not meet the standard of being designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest," the SEC said.
Bitcoin futures? (Score:3)
There's nothing shady or underhand about selling Bitcoin futures. Nope. That's 100% safe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing shady or underhand about selling Bitcoin futures. Nope. That's 100% safe.
Selling futures in a vaporware 'product' that fluctuates wildly in price, what could go wrong?
It's like the stock market, but worse (and that's saying something).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This, exactly.
It appears that the SEC is on it's toes. And their memory of history (2007) is fresh. Trading synthetic securities based on non-registered/non-standard assets is a recipe for disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Also note that "(These proposals) do not meet the standard of being designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest", which is a polite way is saying this stuff is pure gambling. With stocks, there is at least the illusion it is actually an investment and there usually is some real company behind them that sometimes holds part of the stock and has an interest in it not plummeting. (No idea what the actual rules on this are.) In addition, th
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people in stocks are using them as a means to gamble ie speculate, this is true. But that doesnt mean the stocks in question are sketchy. Crypto AND stablecoins are quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
Selling futures in a vaporware 'product' that fluctuates wildly in price, what could go wrong?
It's not that it fluctuates, it's that it's so incredibly easy for the big players to pump/manipulate the price.
Selling futures would multiply their profits by 1000s of % because anybody who buys futures loses 100% of their 'investment' if it doesn't work out. It's not like ordinary stocks where you lose a percentage if the price goes down, you literally lose it all.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that it fluctuates, it's that it's so incredibly easy for the big players to pump/manipulate the price.
You just admitted that it fluctuates by saying that "it's easy for the big players to pump/manipulate the price."
If the results of "pumping and dumping" aren't fluctuations, what would you call it? That's like saying the water pressure in your home "doesn't fluctuate, it just goes up and down."
Here are some of the historical crashes (I mean "fluctuations") in Bitcoin:
June 2011: -99%
In 2011, Bitcoin hit the big time when it soared from $2 to more than $32, achieving parity with a
Re: (Score:2)
Rewrite as: "the problem isn't that it fluctuates..."
Re: (Score:1)
The SEC already approved bitcoin futures ETFs, while continuing to refuse spot ETFs.
Re: (Score:2)
Never understood that one either. But then again, I'm firmly of the opinion that futures shouldn't ever be a thing to begin with. They're far too vulnerable to manipulation by design.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing shady or underhand about selling Bitcoin futures. Nope. That's 100% safe.
Not defending crypto here, but name one investment that's 100% safe. You've set a pretty high bar.
Re: (Score:2)
100% of course doesn't exist, but you can get pretty much there using real world instruments - f.ex. US Treasury bonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The SEC already approved bitcoin future ETFs, while continuing to refuse spot ETFs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I diversify my holdings just like any reasonably intelligent person has done for the last 90 years. I wasn't advocating for or against any particular type of financial product but was just merely pointing out the flaws in their arguments. If manipulation and preventing fraud are important to the SEC then they would not allow futures or shorting due to the very same reasoning that they just used to reject bitcoin etfs.
After the reddit Gamestop scandal, its perfectly clear who the SEC is there to protect an
The SEC is not completely incompetent (Score:2)
Such a surprise....
GOOD. (Score:1)
Cryptocurrencies are garbage and should be treated as such. Remove the part where people are getting rich by wasting electricity (thus polluting the planet) and then it might have some value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Remove the part where people are getting rich by wasting electricity (thus polluting the planet) and then it might have some value.
So if the crypto is run on solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, or nuclear power it's okay? BTW, unless you are meticulous about your electrical usage, you probably waste electricity (and pollute the planet) as well.
Re: (Score:3)
So if the crypto is run on solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, or nuclear power it's okay?
That depends on if the rest of the world has switched over to clean energy or if by using it then you are simply depriving someone else of clean energy.
BTW, unless you are meticulous about your electrical usage, you probably waste electricity (and pollute the planet) as well.
Absolutely. That said, it's not being done intentionally or on any scale of significance. Cryptocurrency is both intentional and on a large scale.
Re: (Score:1)
So if the crypto is run on solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, or nuclear power it's okay?
That depends on if the rest of the world has switched over to clean energy or if by using it then you are simply depriving someone else of clean energy.
Wow... And your vote is worth the same as mine.... That is a real problem.
We got a socialist mouth-breather here who thinks the world is hooked up to a single grid. Depriving someone else of clean energy. Well... It's X-Mas so I'll make this as polite as possible.
FUCK YOU AND YOUR FACE
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah. All y'all do is repeat what Fox News tells you to think. Not gonna waste any further time on you or your type.
Re: (Score:1)
Blah blah blah. All y'all do is repeat what Fox News tells you to think. Not gonna waste any further time on you or your type.
Don't choke on any dicks today, communist bitch.
Smart move (Score:2)
Smart move not to let Tulipmania 2.0 sink its claws any deeper into the wider stock market. No sense giving it more ability to damage the rest of the economy when it goes bust.
A perfect example (Score:3)
Stablecoins fall into this category too. Every time regulators actually dig into their collateralization, the answer is “oh yeah totally not backed like they claim beware danger danger danger.”
Want the advantages of being legit? You gotta, you know, ACTUALLY BE LEGIT. A lot of people crap on government regulation. They should be careful what they wish for.
"DeFi" = "Deregulated Finance" (Score:1)
Don't let the crypto bros fool you: "DeFi" means "Deregulated Finance", not "decentralized" as they're trying to pass it off as.
The crypto bros all want to wrestle control away from governments, and do it without any oversight, and hence no accountability. Why else do you think they're all throwing a fit whenever the specter of regulation comes up (you know, the thing all legitimate currencies have to adhere to?)
Re: (Score:1)
re:: (Score:1)