You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: BTC - Bitcoin doesn't have an ETF due to its market size?
I do believe that the main reason for the SEC's rejection for Bitcoin ETFs are fears surrounding market/price manipulation.
In a way, as price of Bitcoin increase, it will become more expensive for any one person or entity to control it. Thus, this allows for Bitcoin to spread around to more people, and creating a more liquid market as its being held by a greater percentage of the population.
Nevertheless, I don't think liquidity alone will help calm the SEC's concerns around manipulation, as there are still various methods for that to happen, such as "wash trading " (which I've written more about here), or flash crashes caused by major liquidations (think BitMEX with their ridiculous leverages), etc. while could still impact the market.
Yep, you are probably right. Though think about this... who sets the market prices for diamonds? That is one of the least transparent and subjective markets out there, yet they have are well on their way to an ETF, and that is just one example. The SEC is being pretty ridiculous about all their price manipulation fears. Ironically, allowing an ETF would bring more liquidity and likely decrease the ability for smaller players to manipulate.
I can agree to that. Allowing more market instruments such as an ETF, as we've seen before with futures, and custodian solutions, will allow the market to mature further.
This will, in time at least, allow more players to take part in the Bitcoin markets, thus creating more liquidity, which in turn will allow the market to become more robust.
It's sort of a 'chicken or the egg' type of thing.