SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund [pdf]

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by hl5 on Friday March 10, 2017 @04:54PM (#13842503)

It's not reasonable in the sense that the SEC should respond to the level of trader interest in BTC with something other than "don't trade it".

The SEC has a three pronged mission:

- Protect investors - Maintain fair, orderly, and efficiently markets - Facilitate capital formation

With this decision they missed on all three. No investor was protected. The BTC market today was not fair, orderly, or efficient. There was excessive capital destruction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by JumpCrisscross on Friday March 10, 2017 @05:03PM (#13842560)

SEC isn't saying "don't trade it". They're saying don't register a security linked to it.

Registration means you're complying with certain laws. Those laws, in turn, make diligence easier for investors. If you remove those baseline expectations, marginal transaction costs go up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by johnwheeler on Friday March 10, 2017 @06:06PM (#13842936)

Says you... According to their ruling, they're doing this exactly to protect investors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by branchless on Friday March 10, 2017 @07:02PM (#13843217)

How was their capital destruction? People can buy in at a lower price. It's a zero sum game.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by hl5 on Saturday March 11, 2017 @02:56AM (#13844708)

Traders using leverage means it's not a zero sum game.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SEC Rejects Rule Change for Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund ... by branchless on Saturday March 11, 2017 @04:24PM (#13847347)

Nope. Nothing was destroyed. Usd moved from one account to another. Nobody dug up vegetables. Nobody planted any.

[ Parent | on HN ]