Grayscale CEO explains how thinking of US regulators changing for Bitcoin Spot ETFs
The chief executive officer of Grayscale investment explained how the US SEC agency is near to Bitcoin spot ETFs approvals.
At present, some Bitcoin futures ETFs live in the United States but besides the Futures ETFs backed by Bitcoin, there is no Bitcoin spot ETFs. The main reason for dis-approval for Bitcoin spot ETFs applications is the risks associated with it. According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) agency, there are chances of fraud with the manipulation of prices with “Bitcoin spot ETFs”.
Recently Michael Sonnenshein, the chief executive officer of Grayscale investment, appeared in an interview with CNBC’s ETF Edge. The report of the interview was published by CNBC a couple of days ago.
Grayscale CEO noted the Teucrium Bitcoin Futures ETF, which secured regulatory approval from the SEC agency under the Securities Act of 1933. According to Michael, it is a much better indication for the “Bitcoin spot ETFs” applications because the majority of the “Bitcoin futures ETFs” were filed under the Company Act of 1940. So these things are enough to show the changing mentality of the SEC agency.
Michael Sonnenshein explained:
“From the SEC standpoint, there were several protections that 40 Act products have that 33 products don’t have, but never did those protections address the SEC’s concern over the underlying Bitcoin market and the potential for fraud or manipulation.”
Grayscale CEO claimed that approval of the “Bitcoin futures ETFs” application under Act 33 is a clarification that all the arguments between “Bitcoin Futures ETFs” and “Bitcoin Spot ETFs” are invalid.
So in this way, Grayscale CEO claimed that both of these two things are now much like each other, so it is only a matter of time for the SEC agency to approve the applications of “Bitcoin spot ETFs”.
“It is, in our opinion, a matter of when and not if. If the SEC can’t look at two like issues, the futures ETF and the spot ETF, through the same lens, then it is, in fact, potentially grounds for an Administrative Procedure Act violation.”
Read also: NFTs trade volume surges by 2 times over last year
