19
20

Ex-Gemini Lawyer: SEC 'Unlikely' to Approve Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF (coindesk.com)

flibbrMarketplace が 投稿

全 13 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Playful12 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

What a lousy lawyer... Going public bashing the possibility of a client's success BEFORE the formal decision?

How UNPROFESSIONAL!

Trying to get some free publicity? How unethical!

[–]jaumenuez [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I was thinking the same until I remembered what type of journalism we have around bitcoin. I can't believe that, really, he can't be so stupid.

[–]TdotGdot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Eh, the same type of journalism you get everywhere, really. Just the bigger/more established markets are better at dressing up their bias to look more professional.

[–]earonesty [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Of course, it's not actually true that the majority of trading is done in China. That basically means that the SEC is taking at face value the volume numbers as reported by zero-fee exchanges as "real". Why woudl the SEC trust BTCC's volumes?

The idea that "China" trades bitcoin more than anyone else was first made mainstream by the WSJ, and has been repeated ad-nausem. An earlier correlation analysis done by coindeck - which showed that much of that volume is fake - was fundamentally flawed - because it assumed that ratios of local to exchange trading have remained constant. Which, according to Bloomberg, it hasn't. Indeed, programmed trading on zero-fee Chinese trading has skyrocketed. If you have the same entity on both sides of a book making "trades" ... that's not volume.

It's far more likely that the majority of trading is actually done in the U.S. and Europe.

[–]MrNakamoto [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why the twins didn't file in other jurisdictions? Uk, germany might be more friendly to the proposal.

[–]sph44 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Reading through all the comments submitted to the SEC regarding the ETF approval, it appears that almost all of those writing support approval, even if it is with some suggestion or reservation. I read well over 20 letters and the only ones opposed were that hyperactive buttcoiner from Brazil (Jorge Stolfi), Mark Williams who is still embarrassed about his prediction of BTC < $10 in 2014, and some lady who apparently wrote in 8 times. Oh, and one very trustworthy person named "Anonymous" who apparently has it in for the winklevoss twins. That was it. Everyone else who wrote was very positive on approval for the ETF. Yet despite the positive comments, the apparent assumption now is for the SEC to deny it.

[–]albuminvasion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh, and one very trustworthy person named "Anonymous" who apparently has it in for the winklevoss twins.

Would probably have been too obvios if he called himself "M. Zuckerberg"

[–]sreaka [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Wow, very unprofessional by David Brill

[–]maxi_malism [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's been a year of surprises tho.

[–]6c19 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, shit.

[–]bitniyen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

None of this is surprising. The BFX hack is also a concern. The price of BTC would double overnight if the ETF passed, but it's simply not going to happen yet.

[–]OracleSeven [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

no sh*t

[–]UKcoin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

disappointed, if they're going to reject it I wish they'd done it months ago instead of delaying in twice.