SEC Denies Winklevoss Application for a Bitcoin ETF
- Thread starter ajacobson
- Start date
Baron
ET Founder
The whole idea was just dumb to begin with. Just the phrase "Bitcoin ETF" doesn't make any sense, as an ETF is a fund composed of a basket of assets. How can you have an ETF with just Bitcoin in it? If it was called a "Cryptocurrency ETF" where the ETF is comprised of various cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin, etc, then that would make some sense.
If someone wants to invest in bitcoin, they don't need a ETF. Just open an account at one of the BTC exchanges and buy the Bitcoin itself and sit on it. Case closed.
If someone wants to invest in bitcoin, they don't need a ETF. Just open an account at one of the BTC exchanges and buy the Bitcoin itself and sit on it. Case closed.
@Baron, I think the ETF-idea was mainly directed at getting more people in to gamble (long&short) on bitcoin.... which from a trading perspective makes a little sense. I'd like to trade it sometimes, but don't want to go through the hassle of buying BTC through private exchanges etc. But I get the regulatory bodies don't want more legalized gambling in debatable products.
The whole bitcoin idea is flawed anyway, but that's a different discussion altogether.
The whole bitcoin idea is flawed anyway, but that's a different discussion altogether.
Baron
ET Founder
I'm interested to hear you explain what you mean by that. It looks quite the opposite to me. People have been saying bitcoin is bullshit for years, yet it's been the top performing currency for 4 years in a row, and now it's surpassing gold in value.
Personally, I think it's one of the most significant new developments in the last century, and I've been saying it for many years on this site. It's not a flawless iteration of what a perfect digital currency can be, but one thing is clear to me: Digital currency is absolutely the future of commerce. Just like the days of faxing paper documents back and forth has gone bye-bye, the days of physical paper money is coming to an end, and probably sooner than most think. The fundamentalists and the old-timers might not want to hear it but it's the truth.
If that someone is an institution, aka hedge fund, they do. They need to put their money into regulated assets IIRC, and the whole point of bitcoin is to be unregulated. The Winklevii's ETF would have insured that institutional money can be invested in bitcoin, thus no other cryptos were really needed.
They might try other countries' exchanges and maybe they are not that strict...
They were stupid to waste this much time (and not try other exchanges parallel), but their investment (they started when BTC was around 100) paid off.
Also since BTC has a pretty wild range of value based on different exchanges, the ETF was based on the WinkDex, their proprietary summary of the major exchanges. So in a way it was more than just one BTC price.
This thing has been around awhile. Not sure what its about.
They're out of Jersey.
The one in England lol.
https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GABITCO:JY
Its a Bitcoin fund of some shape or form.
They're out of Jersey.
The one in England lol.
https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GABITCO:JY
Its a Bitcoin fund of some shape or form.
@Baron, it has it's merits.. but more in the algorithms behind it I think, but I don't know much about programming though.
The idea was/is great, but the implementation of it can't last IMO. If it was limited in production, then it would have more of a base for a real currency. I think in the beginning one of the selling points of the idea, was that it has a limited supply of coins and therefore it's scarce in the end. And also removing governments intervention in money supply etc seems good.
But my main issue is that it's easily replicated, Litecoin, Dogecoin... etc etc etc. That can go on forever.... and then those two points are non-valid.
You are right that a digital payment way is the future of commerce... but I just don't think it will be Bitcoin perse and definitely not as it is at the moment.
Maybe there needs to be an internet regulated rule that stops replication through other coins...
The idea was/is great, but the implementation of it can't last IMO. If it was limited in production, then it would have more of a base for a real currency. I think in the beginning one of the selling points of the idea, was that it has a limited supply of coins and therefore it's scarce in the end. And also removing governments intervention in money supply etc seems good.
But my main issue is that it's easily replicated, Litecoin, Dogecoin... etc etc etc. That can go on forever.... and then those two points are non-valid.
You are right that a digital payment way is the future of commerce... but I just don't think it will be Bitcoin perse and definitely not as it is at the moment.
Maybe there needs to be an internet regulated rule that stops replication through other coins...
Isn't the whole idea about currency to be about trust and faith? With money, you have faith of the country backing it up. This of course doesn't mean much for Venezuela, but it means plenty for US, Japan, EU, Canada, etc. When it comes to gold, we all know how hard it is to mine it, so there is also this faith that it will be worth something.
When it comes to bitcoin, where is the faith? Sure you can use it now, but just as quickly as My Space went down in flames, bitcoin can also move onto the next one as has been pointed out. There might be a built in limit to how many you can mine, but who will back it? What is behind it? Its only backed by the hope that someone else will give you something for it.
This idea of backing works well for a country. Its after all the reason why a country can issue treasuries but not individuals. Individuals die, but countries generally don't, so you have faith that the paper currency is backed by something, even if its diluting away. All those citizens in that country represent a united front. Its why they don't allow competing money in one country. If you let a few different currencies in one country, it automatically dilutes the faith in any one.
Even when it comes to land, you have faith that tomorrow, it won't be a toxic waste dump, or covered by volcanic lava flow. You can be sure the land will be worth something, that someone will give you something for it, that your political climate will recognize that you own it and can do something with it. If you didn't have any of this, the land wouldn't be worth anything since someone could just take it away.
So with bitcoin, there is no faith that tomorrow it will be worth anything. We might wake up to the next greatest thing and when you wonder who's got your back, there is nobody because nothing is backing it up.
When it comes to bitcoin, where is the faith? Sure you can use it now, but just as quickly as My Space went down in flames, bitcoin can also move onto the next one as has been pointed out. There might be a built in limit to how many you can mine, but who will back it? What is behind it? Its only backed by the hope that someone else will give you something for it.
This idea of backing works well for a country. Its after all the reason why a country can issue treasuries but not individuals. Individuals die, but countries generally don't, so you have faith that the paper currency is backed by something, even if its diluting away. All those citizens in that country represent a united front. Its why they don't allow competing money in one country. If you let a few different currencies in one country, it automatically dilutes the faith in any one.
Even when it comes to land, you have faith that tomorrow, it won't be a toxic waste dump, or covered by volcanic lava flow. You can be sure the land will be worth something, that someone will give you something for it, that your political climate will recognize that you own it and can do something with it. If you didn't have any of this, the land wouldn't be worth anything since someone could just take it away.
So with bitcoin, there is no faith that tomorrow it will be worth anything. We might wake up to the next greatest thing and when you wonder who's got your back, there is nobody because nothing is backing it up.
I've given up trying to call the end of bitcoin, as it's more of a religion than a currency.
I didn't think the SEC would approve.
Still don't get why first mover, assuming that's what btc is, gets to enjoy ALL the spoils. Doesn't seem to work that way in anything else. It MIGHT, out of momentum, but is it guaranteed to last.?
I didn't think the SEC would approve.
Still don't get why first mover, assuming that's what btc is, gets to enjoy ALL the spoils. Doesn't seem to work that way in anything else. It MIGHT, out of momentum, but is it guaranteed to last.?