RT @gaborgurbacs: We are committed to support Bitcoin and Bitcoin-focused financial innovation. Bringing to market a physical, liquid and insured ETF remains a top priority. We continue to work closely with regulators & market participants to get one step closer every day. https://t.co/bDYiSbTRVl
.my 2 cents.
- being declined would be a pain
- their fake ETF is good for now
- they can submit for the 3rd time
- result of Bitwise decision is key moving forward https://t.co/KRsSomdeAH
I was initially looking forward to VanEck, SolidX 'ETF' proposal, but they've submitted and withdrew their application something like 3 times now lol. The first time was enough - since then, not only I am no longer interested in this, but am actually bothered by it. I'd rather not hear anything at all about it, as whatever they say cannot be trusted.
\> I'd rather not hear anything at all about it, as whatever they say cannot be trusted.
hm thats not really a valid takeaway from this
applications get withdrawn from the SEC all the time, by the world's biggest banks and more
its the crypto media that has been making a bigger deal out of all of this than it is. an approval would be nice, but withdrawing an application is very mundane and benign.
The funny thing is, nobody has bought the 144A shares which they released for QIBs. It's been live for a week? Maybe 2?
It poses the question, is there even any demand for a ETF? If you look at all the different types of ways to get exposure to BTC, there is buying physically, otc, futures, swaps, derivatives, brokered trusts. Personally, I think everyone who wants BTC exposure already has a myriad of different avenues to acquire it.
accredited investors don't need an ETF. anybody bothering with actually proving they are accredited already has ways to get passive managed bitcoin access. The 144A shares are useless and unnecessary. Van Eck didn't do it to prove anything, except probably to satisfy some requirement to their shareholders to show they tried.