Following the Securities and Exchange Commission rejection of Vaneck’s bitcoin spot market exchange-traded fund (ETF) on Friday, a number of cryptocurrency advocates discussed the topic over the weekend. For example, 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 does not care about “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 An ATM Asset”
In the first week of November, U.S. lawmakers urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to approve Bitcoin spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs). But on November 12, the US regulator rejected Vaneck’s bitcoin spot ETF and cited a lack of prevention of “fraudulent acts and practices and manipulation” in the market. The rejection also follows the approval of the first bitcoin ETFs based on crypto asset derivative markets, particularly futures.
In fact, the first Proshares Strategy ETF captured almost $ 1 billion in volume and broke records for previously listed exchange traded funds. Next, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler explained to the public why the SEC approved a bitcoin futures version of an ETF. After the ETF’s rejection from Vaneck’s bitcoin spot market, a number of digital currency supporters have discussed the situation. Veteran currency and cryptocurrency trader Peter Brandt tweeted on Saturday that bitcoin advocates should frown on a bitcoin cash market ETF.
“IMO, Bitcoin maximalists should oppose the spot [bitcoin] ETF in [the] United States ”, Brandt noted. The history of Bitcoin’s store of value depends on its scarcity and even some difficulty in buying. Let’s not encourage food-hungry Wall Street to convert BTC into an ATM asset. Say NO to ETFs, ”added the analyst.
Preston Pysh: “Bitcoin literally feasts on corruption and manipulation” – Lowering Bitcoin prices via futures contracts
Host of the Investor Podcast (Bitcoin Fundamentals), Preston Pysh, also discussed the SEC’s denial on social media. “SEC makes decisions on bitcoin spot ETF that benefits hedge funds [and] Wall Street to the detriment of individual investors ”, Pysh noted. “Gary Gensler, Hester Peirce isn’t that the opposite of what you’re supposed to do?” We want answers. Your decisions increase mistrust, ”noted the podcast host. Pysh also said bitcoin didn’t care about the SEC decision and declared:
Here are the people of beauty. Bitcoin gives 2 sh * ts on approval of a spot ETF. It costs almost nothing to the care and it sets in 10 min. They are fighting against a clock – tick, tock, tick… This thing literally feasts on corruption and manipulation and the boy is the plate full.
Some people have argued that Bitcoin futures are easier to manipulate and that is why the US government allowed the derivatives version. “The SEC refused a place [bitcoin] AND F. Why? Because futures contracts are easier to manipulate, IMO, ‘Twitter’s nickname nicknamed’Meme Sergeant Spliff‘ wrote. “The CFTC chief admitted that they can ‘pack’ the prices of silver through futures contracts. What do metals do [and] Does bitcoin have in common? Anti inflationary. They can pack them down, so the USD looks more attractive / safer, ”he added.
During this time, most crypto traders were happy to see that the rejection “did not really have a negative influence on prices”. Many others have shared the view that bitcoin “doesn’t need a spot ETF”. “As long as real Bitcoiners keep buying and prowling”, Rodolfo Martinez wrote. “This rocket is heading for the moon and beyond.”
What do you think of recent views over the weekend on the SEC’s rejection of the ETF from Vaneck’s bitcoin spot market? What do you think of Peter Brandt’s statements about his opposition to a US spot ETF? Let us know what you think of this topic in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. This is not a direct offer or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, nor a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or business. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or allegedly caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, good or service mentioned in this article.