SEC has denied Cboe BZX Exchange's request to approve its Bitcoin ETF proposal, saying it has not been able to prove that it would not be used for fraudulent purposes.
There appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion. BZX claims that Bitcoin's market cannot be manipulated. The SEC thinks it can.
And not only that Bitcoin's market can be manipulated, but that there is significant evidence of actual manipulation and fraud.
Hilariously, BZX's registration document fatally undermined its own argument.
Didn't it occur to them that the SEC might look askance at an ETF proposal whose own risk assessment said the trading platforms for its assets were unregulated, opaque, prone to fraud and security breaches, attractive to hackers and lacked basic protections?
You couldn't make this up.
Index methodology, totally resistant to fraud and manipulation.... 🤣🤣🤣
"Although the Sponsor raises concerns regarding fraud and security of bitcoin platforms in the Registration Statement, the Exchange does not explain how or why such concerns are consistent with its assertion that the Index is resistant to fraud and manipulation."
The full quote is even more entertaining. Their NAV calculation relies entirely on price feeds from platforms that they know might be manipulated and fraudulent. There are no proposals for risk management or mitigation.
So then BZX tries and fails to convince the SEC that the CME Bitcoin futures market is sufficiently large and significant for a surveillance-sharing agreement to mitigate the risk of manipulation and fraud in the spot market....
This didn't help
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Your old company, Reform UK Party Ltd, still exists. It is a private limited company. You have sold your shareholding in this company to your new company, Reform 2025 Ltd. …te.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/116948…
Your members paid their subscriptions to your old company. But you did not sell your shareholding to them, @Nigel_Farage. You sold it to your new company, to which they have paid nothing.
This is like a case study in extreme apartheid. They built a cage around a Palestinian family's home to separate it from the Jewish settlement surrounding it. The only gate to the cage is controlled by the Israeli army.
The Jewish settlement is completely illegal. And so is the cage. And the presence of the IDF. And the IDF's refusal to open the gate to allow a sick elderly woman to be taken to hospital. They'd have let her die.
"It's not out fault, the electronic mechanism was broken" moans the IDF. It was broken for TWO DAYS and they did nothing. And there shouldn't have been a gate anyway. It's an outrage.
For 16 months there has been a culture of silence about the true nature of the "peaceful Israeli communities" attacked on 7/10. Time that silence was broken.
Those communities were established by Israel to secure the lands stolen from the Palestinians expelled to the Gaza Strip. In other words, to prevent the Palestinians returning.
This is the source of the Treasury's claim that in 2006, 90% of Waspi women (women born 6/4/1950 to 5/4/1960) knew women's state pension age was rising. At the time of the survey, these women were aged 45-56. 1/ webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100208…
The survey was carried out by the National Centre for Social Research and Professor Stephen McKay. It used a nationally representative sample of 1,950 adults aged 18-69. The sample was fairly evenly spread across age groups but there were more women than men.
The number of women surveyed in the 45-54 age group was 203. The number of Waspi-age women surveyed is slightly higher because the oldest Waspi women were in the 55-64 age group at the time. 3/
But being a blithering idiot and too arrogant to listen to expert advice doesn't make him a fraudster. The question the court will have to answer is whether he intended to defraud people of their money. I'm not sure he did.
He's different from Mashinsky, who is a professional crook in the Madoff mould and was allowed to deceive people for far too long. He's more like SBF - a young, naive and extremely arrogant tech nerd.
I did a detailed analysis of the reasons for Silvergate's collapse, including the FHLB's decision to pull its funding, in March 2023. Nic Carter has of course gone for a conspiracy theory. But there are simpler explanations. coppolacomment.com/2023/03/lesson…x.com/Bitfinexed/sta…
One possibility is that the rapid fall in the fair value of Silvergate's assets meant it failed to meet the FHLB's tangible capital rule, which is more stringent for smaller banks than the Fed's capital requirements.
It's also possible that the FHLB took a dim view of the sharp deterioration in Silvergate's leverage ratio.