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
The problem is that homeowners don't want houses to be cheap, bcs their houses are a significant part of their net worth and many have mortgages secured on their house value. They are 60% of the population and they vote. So there won't be cheap housing.
Relaxing planning laws would make no difference to house prices, because government and the Bank of England would intervene to prevent them falling, or to pump them up again if they did fall. I have tried repeatedly to explain this but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
I've also explained repeatedly how banks' appetite for lending, and the peculiar nature of mortgages, means that falling house prices reduces, rather than increases, demand for houses and hence also reduces supply as builders and sellers withdraw from the market.
Owners of asset-backed securities such as MBS have a first claim on the underlying asset but don't own it. Just like your mortgage lender has a first claim on your house but doesn't own it.
Furthermore, since the mortgages that back the GSEs' MBS issues are pooled, there is no link between an individual security and any particular mortgages. The MBS holder has a claim on part of the pool, not on specific mortgages.
It is also because vulnerable people such as children and disabled men can be in more danger after car breakdowns or accidents than lone women. It's extremely disturbing that this dogpile on the AA effectively assumes that only lone women are ever vulnerable and in danger.
Considering writing a post about percentages and small numbers. Since, you know, some people seem to think percentages are meaningful when numbers are very small....
So if only one person committed a certain type of offence last year, and two people committed that type of offence this year, that's an increase of 100% in the offending rate. SHOCK HORROR! WE NEED MORE POLICE! JUDGES MUST IMPOSE LONGER SENTENCES!
It's particularly depressing when academics and researchers who should know better use percentages about very small populations. Especially when they also resort to the fallacy of division, as this lot do here: fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-pr…
Very sad to see the account that tweeted this informative thread no longer exists. People did not respect Jake's request not to respond to his thread. There have been some pretty abusive quote tweets. "Cancel culture" claims another victim. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482365…
I would like to remind gender critical people that BOTH sides in this debate are fully entitled to hold and express their views on Twitter. The beliefs of people who disagree with you are every bit as protected under the Equality Act as yours.
There have been too many examples of gender-critical people piling on people for daring to say something they don't like, driving them into protected accounts or off Twitter. The fact that the behaviour of some trans rights supporters is also pretty bad does not excuse this.
Please stop talking about trans women as if all of them are serious sex offenders. They are not.
Also, please pay attention to what people actually SAY. Paddick did NOT say women should be locked up with male rapists. He said each case should be individually risk assessed.
I am sick and tired of the outright lies spread by some gender critical people in pursuit of their agenda. The above is a fine example. Absolutely no-one, least of all Brian Paddick, is recommending locking up women with male rapists.
The number of trans women in prison is tiny. It is easily possible for the prison service to assess each case individually, taking full account of the needs of the prisoner AND the safety of other prisoners. That is what Paddick recommended.