Quote from: QuestionAuthority on March 12, 2017, 06:14:54 AM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on January 07, 2015, 03:56:09 PM

Quote from: Vessko on January 07, 2015, 09:40:36 AM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on January 06, 2015, 08:46:47 PM

Tooooooo risky. Did you read the prospectus? If I was risking client money, I think I would risk their money on Somali oil reserves before this ETF.

I don't think that the ETF-specific risks will be large enough to matter. I mean, they have a large enough amount of bitcoins and it's relatively trivial to make a tracking ETF. Speculating in a volatile commodity/currency like Bitcoin is very risky per se - but if you are willing to stomach that risk, I don't think that speculating in a Bitcoin-tracking ETF would be significantly riskier.

All of this is a moot point anyway. I don't see this ever getting past the SEC.

Wow QuestionAuthority, you were right about this over two years ago. Here's the disapproval notice and what the SEC had to say about Bitcoin:

https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsbzx.htm

Quote from: SEC ruling

Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for
bitcoin are unregulated. Therefore, as the Exchange has not entered into, and would currently be
unable to enter into, the type of surveillance-sharing agreement that has been in place with
respect to all previously approved commodity-trust ETPsagreements that help address
concerns about the potential for fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices in this marketthe
Commission does not find the proposed rule change to be consistent with the Exchange Act.

Maybe I do not understand what you said, so I beg to excuse me if I make a mistake, but the fact is that manipulations continue and the example of their existence is a sharp fluctuation in the price of bitcoin. I would not even be surprised if the administrations of trade exchanges take part in this.