Now that the Winklevoss twins have fallen out of the race, the frontrunners in the ETF race are Direxion, Bitwise and SolidX.

I bet one of the big parties like Blackrock will get approval earlier than the current frontrunners. Not sure if these parties are applying at all though but some of their clients certainly are requesting for it.

Agreed, Blackrock are certainly looking into the cryptocurrency market and they are the world's largest provider of ETFs.

Blackrock is $1 trillion worth company. Crypto market will go crazy with the huge investment of blackrock. Fingures crossed.

Although I don’t mention Blackrock in my article, you’re right about the impact a Blackrock ETF would have on the market and they actually have something like 6 Trillion under management. If they wanted to apply to the SEC for a Bitcoin ETF, they would go about it in a different way by asking the SEC what they had to do to get an ETF approved. The Winklevoss twins go in the front door of the SEC, but firms like Blackrock go in the back door.

None of us were really paying much attention to the Winkleoss ETF anyways, that was just an apeal from last years ETF proposal. All eyes are on the Cboe etf which is highly likely to be approved. They're all friends making deals behind the scenes.

I hope you’re right about the high probability of approval and I agree it’s certainly plausible that they are friends making deals behind the scenes. But, how the CBOE application answers the SEC’s stated concerns about the underlying market conditions of manipulation, malicious software and exchange hacks (many of them being outside the US) is an interesting question.

I believe #Chervinsky has it right. And FWIW I believe Everyone in the BitSphere IS paying attention and in light of all this they may be paying too much for #Bitcoin right now too.
A lot of speculators have predicted the next major price rise coming sometime within the next few weeks followed by a surge in #February which would make perfect sense with the SEC's next delayed decision coming in #March #2019
Here's my take...

I've read your take and I agree with its contents. The Winklevoss denial may have been an appeal against a previous refusal, but the reasons given for refusal by the SEC has implications for the VanEck ETF, despite it being backed by CBOE and having a better chance, because it targets institutional investors, whereas the minimum entry point of Winklevoss was 0.1 BTC. The underlying market conditions, manipulation etc are there just the same. Let's wait and see what happens, but I'm half expecting a delay of the August 10th deadline and a negative impact on the market. I expect to see a regulatory framework from the SEC, before we get an ETF and because of the current regulatory uncertainty the price is going to keep bouncing up and down. The current market conditions suit traders, trading volatility, rather than hodlers, but this will change in time.

Spot on! @sandwichbill
Let's see how this plays out, but I believe you are right about this creating a volatile market which favours the frequent traders over the likes of long term investors.

Good article, I look at it as having more time to obtain more coins before this happens.

Dear, Dont take it negative, try to answer or post in very short ways..

Short answer: Who put you in charge, sweetypie?

I'm looking forward to August 10th. The institutional investor focus is a big positive and it may be the final push an ETF needs to get approved.

Yes ETF for bitcoin would be approved for sure but it would take time for this to happen , whenever it happens expect $5000 boost on the upper side for BTC
Upvote my comments and reply

Yes, I think it's going to take a bit more time than we hoped. Also, Blackrock, fidelity, Susquehanna etc may submit applications at some point and probably to granted approval.

SUPER SPECIAL OFFER BITTRACE AIRDROP[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmaGTgSDQBAePPgDTpNiQzzC51sjQXjE3DdaRj9ya5WFMS/FREE-1.jpg][IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmZYRzEStF8naDavkm67kKRANMbnWEkLCsH9yechuJh55V/FREE-2.jpg][IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmP6wwX1h32exHEWSf79xoLVmpwiMCAF1Edr8qErwanxAS/FREE-3.jpg]

Congratulations @sandwichbill! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/70x80/http://steemitboard.com/notifications/voted.png] Award for the number of upvotes received

Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

> Do you like SteemitBoard's project? Then Vote for its witness and get one more award!

when moon ?????

I think we may be in for a frustrating wait, but we'll get our ETF in the end.

I think that etf not approved this year.

Bitcoin in the moon cryptocurrency field and people love and easy to use .

ETF September.?

I tend to think now that it’s going to be a frustrating wait. We may see regulatory measures first.

Thank you @sandwichbill for an actual easy-to-read recap of the chances of success for various players in the Bitcoin ETF situation, and also your earlier post “Why the SEC WILL Approve a Bitcoin ETF in 2018.”

On the topic of predictions, @jrcornel's “What might a Bitcoin ETF mean for the price?” has an interesting comparison using the post-ETF gold price as a way to think about how an ETF might affect the price of Bitcoin. (Hint: it's good news.)

> Back in 2003 gold ETFs were introduced for the first time. Many of which were physically backed by the precious metal. At the time gold was trading for roughly $300 an ounce... Prices more than doubled to about $700 from 2003 to 2007, and reached $1000 an ounce just before the Recession and [Quantitative Easing] QE really sent prices of commodities skyward post 2009.

Also wanted to take a second to elaborate on the dissent from Commissioner Peirce, as she noted three reasons that she disagreed with the Commission's order disapproving the rule change that would've favored the Twins:

1. The proposed rule change DOES satisfy the requirements of Exchange Act section 6(b)(5)
2. The disapproval order inhibits institutionalization
3. The disapproval order stifles innovation

Here's a quick look at her dissenting comments on each of these three reasons, repurposed from, “SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce dissents from SEC decision against Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF,” an article we put together...

>Contrary to the Commission’s determination, I believe that the proposed rule change satisfies the statutory standard and that we should permit BZX to list and trade this bitcoin-based exchange-traded product (“ETP”)

This is in reference to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 6(b)(5), which states that the rules of a national securities exchange be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices [and] to protect investors and the public interest.”

Peirce argues that the commision is focusing on the underlying Bitcoin spot market (which seemingly doesn’t meet the criteria) but should instead be focusing on BZX specifically, and their ability “to surveil trading of and to deter manipulation in the ETP shares listed and traded on BZX.”

>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.

This is an interesting cart/horse type argument, basically saying that by not promoting the institutionalization of the bitcoin market, the SEC is preventing it from solving the very concerns they point to in their 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

And here’s a “chilling effect” type argument, that narrowly interpreting the statutory standard to preclude this proposed rule change would negatively impact innovators from participating in the markets.

In conclusion, Commissioner Peirce argues:

>Many investors have expressed an interest in gaining exposure to bitcoin, and a subset of these investors would prefer to gain exposure without owning bitcoin directly. An ETP based on bitcoin would offer investors indirect exposure to bitcoin through a product that trades on a regulated securities market and in a manner that eliminates some of the frictions and worries of buying and holding bitcoin directly.

You can read Commissioner Peirce’s complete dissent at SEC.gov.

Excited to see where this goes.

Thanks for your comment, good stuff.

One down 3 to go.nice work.https://i.memeful.com/media/post/4wbk6WM_700wa_0.gif

Nice post sir
I am new on Steemit can I get your single upvote I will upvote in return as much. As possible

Is that right??

The State Securities Commission (SSC) has warned industries to avoid transactions, issuance, and brokerage of cryptocurrencies. The SSC said that trading in cryptocurrencies is similar to money-laundering since they are not legal tenders. Furthermore, Vietnam's central bank, the State Bank of Vietnam had given a nod for banning the import of cryptocurrency mining devices last week. Even though the decision is temporary, it affected the crypto market in a negative way.

@harshsahu

I hadn’t heard about the SSC story and I've no idea whether it is actually true. It may just be FUD, like so many reports coming out of Asia and the timing of this makes me suspicious. We often see these kind of reports regarding events in Asis, which are deliberately timed to coincide with futures expirations, the last of which was on Friday and we later find-out that they're not entirely accurate, but, as I say, I don't really know.

Yes ...SEC would not be able to hold the ETFS for long and CBOE will get it approved and I fully endorse the SEC commissioner's standpoint! Cryptos to the moon and Beyond!

Kindly check my article
user name -abhishekabhi07

comments your views ..

Yep, that sums up Hester Pierce's view of the Winklevoss refusal. She's trying to tie-down the SEC decision making process to its narrower remits and let's hope she succeeds.

Everything will be fine, they will. Not going anywhere.

its too long post bro.

Nobody’s forcing you to read it, bro.

Very nice article, I think their ETf application does not really matter in the grand scheme of things, but I still think a CBOE etf will not go ahead either..just not yet at least untill we have some regulation. Anyway nice article please check out my work

Thanks for your comments. I agree that regulations will come first.

I think CBOE ETF is expected to be approved either this year or early next year.

And why not, its price is set according to the current futures price, it is insured, only targeted towards institutions and the SEC’s concerns about manipulation of the BTC spot price in jurisdictions outside the US hasn’t put JP Morgan off the idea of investing in the Swedish XBT tracker fund.

Hey Bill, this might like You it's an Airdrop worth U$D150 - Only for invite The link

Thank you for compiling and summarizing all the ETF happenings in the Bitcoin world. Would you shed some additional light into what you think the approval or continued denial will mean in relation to market prices of the coins that are included in the indexes proposed, or crypto as a whole?

Maybe not this time, but one day it will surely be approved in some form. We need to keep track of the future dates.