Oh please. We at FintekNews always strive to be “news neutral” and be fair to all sides of topical articles/blogs (except some are fake news, of course), BUT below is a blogpost that basically says bitcoin ETF’s are designed to be illegal and the SEC should reject them. We at FintekNews are quite bullish on bitcoin and have written many ‘plus’ articles (full disclosure) and are ETF enthusiasts as well, although hesitant on this SEC approval. But stretching the thought that a bitcoin ETF may encourage criminal activities? I don’t think so.
“The SEC is expected to act soon to approve or reject bitcoin-based Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). Such ETFs would buy and hold bitcoins and provide an opportunity for U.S. investors to speculate in bitcoin.
They are not in the public interest, and the SEC should reject them. Approving bitcoin ETFs would support a payment mechanism that has only one viable application — break the law.
Approval by the SEC would constitute an endorsement of bitcoin that would further its use in money laundering, ransomware, tax evasion and other criminal activities.
In general, I believe issuers should be allowed to issue any type of security as long as they properly communicate the risks to investors. I am not in favor of merit regulation in which regulators only approve investments that the regulators think are good investments.
Informed investors should be allowed to make their own investment decisions without interference from a nanny-state government. Furthermore, I am a big proponent of blockchain, the underlying technological breakthrough behind bitcoin.
Blockchain has many legitimate applications, but Bitcoin 1.0 is not one of them. Further, I see nothing wrong with digital currencies, and have called upon the Federal Reserve to issue U.S. dollars in blockchain form.
Bitcoin was started in 2008 by someone or some group using the name “Satoshi Nakomoto.” No one knows for sure who Satoshi Nakomoto is.
There are people who are suspected of being Satoshi Nakomoto who deny it and others who claim to be Satoshi Nakomoto but cannot prove it. This murky background alone should give regulators pause…
Read Full Blog at TheHill