Over the past two days, the narrative on bitcoin exchange traded funds (ETFs) in the U.S. has felt like a rollercoaster.
Up until Wednesday, all eyes were watching for a final decision on two futures-backed bitcoin ETF proposals set to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and created by ProShares.
However, the resulting decision not only shot down ProShares' twin proposals, but five others like it by Direxion and another two by GraniteShares, with the latter to be listed on the Chicago Board Options Exchange (Cboe).
Then, as if matters had not been rousing enough, the SEC announced the following day a petition to review all nine disapproval decisions in accordance to Rule 431(e) of the Commission's official "Rules of Practice," noting that until such a time the review is complete all such decisions would be stayed.
In truth, it isn't as if the SEC has never turned around to re-examine their rulings in a similar manner before. Just last month, the results of one such review over the Winklevoss bitcoin ETF was released, ultimately re-affirming the initial rejection.
Still, the fallout from this week's events on the matter of regulatory approval over a bitcoin ETF has left many in the crypto community jaded over what feels to be a continuing uphill battle.
In fact, some have taken to Twitter in accusing the agency, in part jokingly, of using their powers of regulatory disapproval then review to "stress test" the bitcoin markets.
To be fair, market manipulation was a key reason specified for the initial disapproval of all nine ETF proposals, though to the wider crypto community this decision was taken primarily as a barrage of attacks by the agency deliberately meant to hinder the growth of the industry.
Interestingly enough, the SEC did stop just short of handing down a rejection on all ten bitcoin ETF proposals said to be decided upon in the next two months. One remains in this respect put forth by VanEck and SolidX for a physical bitcoin ETF that commentators in the past have touted as being the strongest candidate of the batch.
As such, coupled with the reality that technically the other nine disapprovals are now pending under SEC review, certain commentators on Twitter see the culmination of this week's events as reason to believe there might just be a major reversal of fortune in coming weeks.
Who really cares?
Yet, important to note in the midst of the discussion, is a strain of bitterness expressed by some regarding all the hubbub and attention bitcoin ETFs have been sparking as of late. The reoccurring critique by such commentators being that bitcoin ETFs aren't all that interesting, let alone, necessary for the continued growth of crypto markets.
As such, to the ones that hold bitcoin as an asset otherly in nature from mainstream financial assets and not compatible in the guise of institutional investment vehicles such at ETFs, the rejections by the SEC have been touted as "a blessing in disguise" and a decision for review as nothing more than "overrated" news.
Agree or disagree, for the time being, regulatory approval over a bitcoin ETF remains highly speculative here in the U.S.
For "TenaciousJ" that means one simple fact:
Computer image via Shutterstock
The leader in news and information on cryptocurrency, digital assets and the future of money, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups. As part of their compensation, certain CoinDesk employees, including editorial employees, may receive exposure to DCG equity in the form of stock appreciation rights, which vest over a multi-year period. CoinDesk journalists are not allowed to purchase stock outright in DCG.