Following the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rejection of Vaneck’s bitcoin spot market exchange-traded fund (ETF) on Friday, a number of cryptocurrency advocates discussed the subject this weekend. For instance, the veteran FX trader Peter Brandt told his 581,700 Twitter followers that bitcoin maximalists “should oppose” a spot market bitcoin ETF. Bitcoiner Preston Pysh said bitcoin could care less “about the approval of a spot ETF.”
Crypto Community Discusses Recent Bitcoin ETF Rejection — Peter Brandt Says ‘Let’s Not Encourage Wall Street to Convert Bitcoin Into a Vending Machine Asset’
U.S. legislators urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to approve Bitcoin spot exchange-traded money (ETFs) during the first week in November. But on November 12, the U.S. regulator rejected Vaneck’s bitcoin spot ETF and cited a lack of prevention toward “fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” in the market. The rejection also follows the approval of the first bitcoin ETFs based on the crypto asset’s derivatives markets, specifically futures.
The Proshares Strategy ETF’s debut surpassed $1 billion volume, breaking records previously set for exchange-traded funds. Gary Gensler was then the chairman of SEC and explained why the SEC had approved an ETF that could be used to trade bitcoins. Some digital currency advocates discussed the matter after Vaneck’s rejection of the ETF. Peter Brandt, a veteran FX and cryptocurrency trader tweeted Saturday that ETFs for bitcoin spots should be rejected by bitcoin supporters.
“IMO, Bitcoin maximalists should oppose spot [bitcoin]ETFs [the] U.S.,” Brandt said. Bitcoin’s store of value story depends on its scarcity and even some difficulty to purchase. Let’s not encourage greedy grub-hungry Wall Street to convert BTC into a vending machine asset. Say NO to ETFs,” the analyst added.
Preston Pysh: ‘Bitcoin Literally Feasts on Corruption and Manipulation’ —Tamping Down Bitcoin Prices via Futures
Host of The Investor’s Podcast (Bitcoin Fundamentals), Preston PyshAlso, the SEC refused to accept social media posts by entrepreneurs was discussed. “The SEC is making decisions on the bitcoin spot ETF which benefits hedge funds [and] Wall Street at the expense of retail investors,” Pysh said. “Gary Gensler, Hester Peirce isn’t this the opposite of what you’re charted to do? We are looking for answers. Your decisions are increasing distrust,” the podcast host noted. Pysh stated that Bitcoin could not care more about the SEC decisions. stated:
Here’s the beauty folks. Bitcoin gives 2 sh*ts about the approval of a spot ETF. You can have it held for as little as $10 and settle in less than 10 minutes. They are fighting a clock – tick, tock, tick…This thing literally feasts on corruption and manipulation and boy is the plate full.
Some individuals argued that bitcoin futures are easier to manipulate and that’s why the U.S. government has allowed the derivatives version. “The SEC denied a spot [bitcoin] ETF. Why? Because futures are easier to manipulate IMO,” the Twitter handle dubbed ‘Meme Sergeant Spliff’ wrote. “The head of the CFTC admitted they can ‘tamp down’ silver prices via futures. How do metals work? [and]What does bitcoin share in common with other currencies? Anti inflationary. They can tamp them down, so USD looks more attractive/safer,” he added.
However, crypto traders were overwhelmingly successful. pleased to see that the rejection “had no real bad price influence.” Many others shared the opinion that bitcoin “doesn’t need a spot ETF.” “As long as the Real Bitcoiners keep buying and hodling,” Rodolfo Martinez wrote. “This rocket is heading to the moon and beyond.”
What do you think about the recent opinions this weekend about the SEC rejecting Vaneck’s bitcoin spot market ETF? What do you think about Peter Brandt’s statements about opposing a spot ETF in the U.S.? Please comment below to let us know your thoughts on this topic.
Image creditShutterstock. Pixabay. Wiki Commons
DisclaimerThis information is provided for educational purposes only. It does not constitute an offer, solicitation, or recommendation of any company, products or services. Bitcoin.com doesn’t offer investment, tax or legal advice. The author and the company are not responsible for any loss or damage caused by the content or use of any goods, services, or information mentioned in the article.