Published
5 years ago on
July 28, 2018
“I am concerned that the Commission’s approach undermines investor protection by precluding greater institutionalization of the Bitcoin market. More institutional participation would ameliorate many of the Commission’s concerns with the Bitcoin market that underlie its disapproval order. More generally, the Commission’s interpretation and application of the statutory standard sends a strong signal that innovation is unwelcome in our markets, a signal that may have effects far beyond the fate of Bitcoin ETPs.â€See the full report for yourself, here. We want to focus on the latter part of this statement; ‘More generally, the Commission’s interpretation and application of the statutory standard sends a strong signal that innovation is unwelcome in our markets’. This is a powerful comment and suggests that Peirce is concerned that by rejecting the ETF, the SEC are only discouraging change within their markets that has already proven to be innovative and something that could play a huge part in the future of world economics. Moreover, the SEC could kickstart a new, trend that would see Bitcoin ETF’s become more common, I guess Peirce wants the opportunity to be a part of that, although the SEC on the other hand, clearly do not. What does this mean for the Winklevoss twins now? We know they are probably going to reapply, but perhaps this time they should seek further consultation with Peirce as Peirce no doubt has some authority within the commission. It does seem that until the threat of money laundering is removed, the SEC won’t actually permit the Bitcoin ETF but, assuming the twins persist and assuming Peirce works towards cleaning up the appearance of the ETF, perhaps next time the conclusion will be very different.
