Skip to main content

SEC, the Winklevi and the Bitcoin Boogeyman

On Thursday, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss’ proposed rule change to allow for the creation of a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) was once again denied. The bitcoin market reacted accordingly (i.e., sell-off). If you’re not a follower of the efforts on all fronts to make the crypto space more inviting for institutional money, you probably don’t know that this is just a footnote in what is shaping up to be a long saga (for the Winklevi and institutional investors generally). However, this week’s news is not really news or surprising as the Winklevi were previously denied earlier this year.

Many have argued that the SEC’s refusal to grant authority to create bitcoin ETFs is actually counterproductive. The thought is that ETFs will give investors (retail and institutional alike) the ability to gain exposure to bitcoin without the hassle of exchanges and wallets and keys and so on and so forth. ETFs also open up the markets to investors that can only hold securities (think: retirement accounts and mutual funds). According to the SEC, bitcoin’s most significant markets are unregulated overseas markets that are subject to price manipulation so the argument cuts both ways. One position is that by allowing these types of ETFs, this will bring additional regulatory oversight to a vastly unregulated space.

So what does all of this mean? Well, for starters, the SEC (and lawmakers generally) can’t seem to bring itself to get past bitcoin’s shady start. They will probably continue to discourage adoption of, or investment in, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies until the heavy-hitting institutional money forces them to reconsider. Until then, we’re likely to continue to hear the boogeyman buzzwords such as “manipulation” and “nefarious purposes” as a basis for their positions. These are certainly valid concerns but they're certainly not exclusive to cryptocurrency.

There was a ray of light in the SEC decision: an interesting dissent. I won’t spoil all the fun for you but here are the key takeaways: the proposed change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act, the disapproval inhibits institutionalization, and it also dampens innovation (all fair points). You can read Commissioner Peirce’s dissent here.

#SEC #ETFs #cryptocurrency #regulators #bitcoin #Government #institutionalinvestors


Popular posts from this blog

The Rundown on CBDCs

Everyday there is a news report about a country that is "exploring" or "studying" the possibility of developing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). In the past few days, I've read articles about Rwanda, Israel and France looking to pilot programs with CBDCs. And yesterday, the Bank of International Settlements announced its backing of the development of CBDCs. With approximately 80% of central banks around the world taking a closer look at CBDCs, now is as good a time as any to learn more about them. What Are They? A central bank digital currency is exactly what it sounds like--a digital currency issued by a central bank. In the same way our central bank, the Federal Reserve, issues the U.S. dollar, it would similarly issue some official U.S. digital currency ('digital dollar'). This is pretty much where the simplicity of it all ends. Things get really hairy (really fast) when central banks have to figure out how CBDCs fit into a traditional financ

ABCs of DeF(i)

The summer of 2020 is notable for a host of reasons. A pandemic. #BLM protests. USPS shenanigans. But within the blockchain/crypto space, the summer of 2020 will be remembered as "DeFi Summer." Short for "decentralized finance," DeFi refers to a system of automated financial arrangements stored and executed on a distributed ledger such as blockchain. One of my business faves, Mark Cuban, recently touted the potential for DeFi to explode in the next 10 years. I may be biased but I agree; DeFi has the potential to revolutionize finance. Automation is Key We know that blockchain can facilitate peer-to-peer transactions in a trustless environment, that transactions happen without the need for a third party intermediary, and that an immutable record of the transaction is stored on the ledger. In other words, transactions happen automatically and records of transactions are incapable of being changed. This is why bitcoin was created. This is blockchain 1.0. We also know

Happy New Year! + OCC OKs Stablecoins

Happy New Year from the most consistently inconsistent blogger to ever have blogged! I've finally accepted myself for who and what I am in hope that I'll surprise myself by becoming inconsistently consistent. I'm trying to make 2021 "The year of execution" so *fingers crossed* we shall see. On to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)... Yesterday, the OCC announced (well, clarified) that banks are able to use distributed ledger technology (e.g., blockchain) to verify and store transactions and they are also able to transact stablecoins. Banks must continue to comply with the applicable laws and other sound banking practices, such as "Know Your Customer," anti-money laundering controls, and Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. However, the OCC recognizes the efficiency and security benefits associated with blockchain technology in banking. The regulator also recognizes the banking industry's track record of competently (mostly) de