[hatesinterviews]

> But somehow an actual plain, direct, spot ETF that can provide redemptions to authorized participants is the one that’s not allowed.

Custodianship is probably why they’ve rejected direct spot ETFs that own real bitcoins. It would be disastrous if hacked. There’d be no restitution for investors.

With futures-based bitcoin products, no one is actually holding bitcoins. It’s cash settled between the long and shorts based on a published closing price. So the BITO ETF has no risk of being irreparably hacked.

[modeless]

We don't have to speculate. The SEC has stated their reasons. They are concerned mainly about market manipulation, not custodianship.

[thedudeabides5]

Sorry what are the reasons?

[hatesinterviews]

I think you’re overlooking the part of their statements where they have repeatedly emphasized investor protections.

Some of the different ETFs are filed under different legislations, and the SEC claim that the Investment Company Act of 1940 provided better investor protections than the Securities Act of 1933, but I’m unclear of what particular stipulations make that so.