SEC Denies Winklevoss Application for a Bitcoin ETF

1. The network effect. There are possibly better coins out there. I own those too.
2. Extreme hoarding is a self-perpetuating phenomenon that lasts years.
 
Baron said:
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.
More...

The premise was to make a registered securities vehicle so that managed money in the US could invest. That is a huge untapped market.
 
SoesWasBetter said:
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.?
More...

Exactly, it shouldn't and therefore I can't see it as an efficient market. I haven't checked lately, but what are the other coins doing? Do they move at all like BTC, new highs in the last month?
In an efficient market, the other coins should be able to be swapped for BTC and vice versa and because they seem to be alternatives for each other they should track each others trades. If they don't... it will be like a bubble. In which case BTC definitely looks more like a religion to me, the believe and faith are the driving forces.
 
JackRab said:
Exactly, it shouldn't and therefore I can't see it as an efficient market. I haven't checked lately, but what are the other coins doing? Do they move at all like BTC, new highs in the last month?
In an efficient market, the other coins should be able to be swapped for BTC and vice versa and because they seem to be alternatives for each other they should track each others trades. If they don't... it will be like a bubble. In which case BTC definitely looks more like a religion to me, the believe and faith are the driving forces.
More...

Why do you bother to comment on something you are so clueless?
 
Baron said:
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.
More...
Not every etf is diversified among assets. FXE is one example.
 
Gotcha said:
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.
More...
As long as 2 sides of transaction trust the 3rd party - the trustee, in case of bitcoin it's a mathematical protocol - I see no reason why it should not work.
 
Last edited:
JackRab said:
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.
More...
Yeah, but that's no different than paper currency. Sure, there are plenty of other cryptocurrencies out there besides Bitcoin. But there's also plenty of other paper currencies in existence besides the U.S. Dollar. Just because derivative currencies exist (both digital and paper) doesn't mean that there can't be one leader to rally around in each space.
 
Baron said:
Yeah, but that's no different than paper currency. Sure, there are plenty of other cryptocurrencies out there besides Bitcoin. But there's also plenty of other paper currencies in existence besides the U.S. Dollar. Just because derivative currencies exist (both digital and paper) doesn't mean that there can't be one leader to rally around in each space.
More...
State currencies will always find customers. E-currencies don't have to.
 
gkishot said:
State currencies will always find customers. E-currencies don't have to.
More...

This is correct, however some times this is used as an implication that e-currencies have no underlying support compared to fiat. I take a more positive interpretation -- without any government mandate or coercion whatsoever, people have freely chosen to utilize them. What does that say about the e-currency? What is better long term? That which is utilized through coercion or that which is freely chosen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top