Despite showing some acceptance towards cryptocurrencies, regulators were still warming up to the products surrounding them. Bitcoin exchange-traded funds [ETF] were a no go for regulators for a long time. However, by giving a thumbs up to the second BTC futures ETF, the US regulators proved that they were slowly humming to the tune of the crypto-verse.
Following Teucrium’s Bitcoin futures ETF approval, the SEC gave a green light to Valkyrie as well. Valkyrie reportedly filed this application under the ’33 Act.
While the community celebrated this win, a few others were still awaiting their approval. This list entailed those who have filed applications for Bitcoin spot ETF. In its filing, the SEC reveals that it views it as,
“unlikely that trading in the proposed ETP would be the predominant influence on prices in the CME bitcoin futures market.”
Grayscale CEO optimistic about Bitcoin spot ETF
Appearing in a recent interview with Anthony Pompliano, the CEO of Grayscale, Michael Sonnenshein addressed the Bitcoin spot ETF application that is still under review. However, this time he was positive about bagging a green signal.
Both the aforementioned Bitcoin future ETFs were approved under the Securities Act 33. This is the same law that spot ETFs are counting on. Therefore, following this approval, Sonnenshein believes that the spot ETFs could stand a chance. Further noting how the SEC perceives Bitcoin ETFs, the Grayscale CEO said,
“They do need to understand that if they don’t bring this under their purview and allow this to become an ETF have investors have that familiarity have that protection that the ETF wrapper provides they’re really not fulfilling their mandate in protecting investors.”
Additionally, with the surging demand for cryptocurrencies, the importance of regulators keeping up with the trends is also pertinent. Highlighting the same, he pointed out that the SEC was bringing in better regulations for the crypto-verse. He further added,
“Industry in this asset class isn’t going away and so by investors not proactively continuing to advocate for this and then having regulators answer that call and bring these assets closer into the regulatory perimeter they’re really not helping or really protecting anybody.”