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

Comments

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

Before You Mint Your NFT

With NFT season taking a bit of a breather (kinda), I thought this would be the perfect time to lay out a few things to consider before minting an NFT.  If you missed the frenzy, well, welcome. "NFT" stands for non-fungible token and these digital tokens represent real world ownership and provenance of a particular asset. NFTs are minted (i.e., produced), stored and transacted (bought/sold/traded) on a distributed ledger like blockchain. Some NFTs represent ownership of tangible assets and some NFTs are digital/virtual assets  (yes, a digital piece of art was purchased for $69M). "Non-fungibility" is a scary word but it essentially means that the asset is unique, cannot be interchanged with another asset, and cannot be replicated. Think of NFTs as either collectibles, like artwork and trading cards, or title to tangible/real property, like real estate and cars.  So with all the excitement having simmered down a bit, below are a few things to think about before you

A Changing Tide. But Not Really.

I almost titled this post, "An Open Love Letter to Rep. Darren Soto" but I thought that might be weird. I landed on [whatever it is] because it has recently occurred to me that there may be significant legislation around blockchain coming out of Congress this session. Rep. Soto (FL-09) has been one of blockchain's biggest champions on Capitol Hill and I expect that will continue to be the case. In anticipation of "big things blockin," I thought I'd revisit two blockchain bills that made it out of the House of Representatives during the last congressional session. Given the change in the make-up of the Senate, maybe we'll see them again. But maybe we won't need to see them again....? Stay tuned. The first of the two bills was the Blockchain Innovation Act. This legislation sought to have the Department of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission study the use of blockchain technology in commerce and assess its fraud and security risks and benefits. This