SEC Rejects 9 Bitcoin ETF Proposals

“. .

Similar language was used from the GraniteShares rejection as well.
However for the 3 companies named today, the suggestions were exceptional in that they were tied to the market to get bitcoin futures as opposed to a fund which holds bitcoin directly.
For those who have read disapproval requests for bitcoin ETFs at years past the speech probably calls to head the justifications employed to twice strike down a proposal from shareholders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss because of their proposed bitcoin ETF.

And in the case of Direxion’s five proposed ETFs:

“. .
In all instances, the SEC worried that it”emphasizes that its disapproval doesn’t rest on a test of if bitcoin, or blockchain technology more commonly, has value or utility as an innovation or an investment”
The rejections come only weeks following SEC commissioners completed an overview on a proposed bitcoin ETF from shareholders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, whose multi-year effort was hurried after a majority of the SEC’s commissioners backed up the agency’s first March 2017 conclusion.
1 commissioner, Hester Peirce, dissented which choice, later telling CoinDesk in a meeting that the movement to obstruct a bitcoin ETF is really a disservice to both shareholders and innovators.

The leader in blockchain information, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict series of editorial policies. CoinDesk has been also an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which excels in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

The SEC image via Shutterstock

In three orders published on August 22, the rejections came forward of formerly reported deadlines originating in the SEC’s public-facing approval procedure.

Find the full rejection orders under:

Released at Wed, 22 Aug 2018 22:12:57 +0000

“The Commission admits that, in comparison to trading within unregulated bitcoin spot markets, trading a bitcoin-based ETP on a national securities market may offer some additional protection to investors, but the Commission must consider this potential advantage in the wider context of if the proposal meets all the relevant requirements of the Exchange Act,” officials argued from the ProShares rejection.
At precisely exactly the identical time, the SEC failed to wreak a prominent point: that investors would acquire an extra layer of protection by trading exchange-based merchandise for bitcoin — although also contending that potential benefits should be held contrary to other factors.

GraniteShares ETF Rejection from CoinDesk on Scribd

“Additionally, the President and COO of CFE, recently acknowledged by a letter to the Commission staff that’the present bitcoin futures trading volumes around Cboe Futures Exchange and CME may not currently be enough to support ETPs seeking 100 [percent] long or brief exposure to bitcoin’,” the agency wrote.

Past problems cited

Notably, the SEC cited a letter in one of their current markets for bitcoin stocks from the U.S., CBOE.
The agency composed in the Event of ProShares:

Notably, the bureau used the exact same rationale — and even wording — from all its rejections.