One of these last days, Grayscale won in court the obligation of SEC to reanalyze their bitcoin ETF application, and, in case they continue to say no, as they did the first time, also offer a reason for it.

How does that sound? Bullish? Bearish?

Let's say this again. Grayscale had (and probably still has) a Bitcoin Fund called Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC). They wanted to transform this into a Bitcoin ETF (exchange traded fund), which is what every big player wants to have now.

So, what did the SEC say to their application? NO! Without any reasonable explanation.

Now, the judge(s) ordered SEC to at least give a reasonable explanation, if they are going to say no. They didn't order them to say Yes, and couldn't have, because it's not their place.

Knowing Gensler, and the policy of SEC under his reign, what do you think will the answer be this time? Yes? Get out of here! I'm inclined to believe they said NO without a reasonable explanation the first time suspecting this will likely go to court and they'll say NO again. 😀 Twice to the same bitcoin ETF. Gensler will probably be pleased by the well-executed plan if that's what it was. Or it was sheer arrogance and a dismissive attitude toward something that is related to crypto.

Now, I still wonder why are people hopeful about their rulings for the rest of the spot bitcoin ETF coming these days in the first appearance. Just because one of them is under the BlackRock name and they have an almost perfect score for approved ETFs?

That is true, but
* this is their first crypto ETF (I suppose)
* did Gensler actually approve anything related to crypto? I mean the SEC under him, not before him. I don't recall anything, but I might be wrong.
* if Gensler doesn't want problems with BlackRock for saying No, he can just delay their ETF for 240 days

 https://images.hive.blog/DQmRXfStTQuXdZN6f3C3oUNuZeAyGkM7szMqbqcjY2bWT4u/manhattan.jpg 
[Source](https://unsplash.com/photos/7fnNrzSly7Q)

Now, why do crypto people want to see spot crypto ETFs, in particular? Yeah... greed.

This comes from the assumption that such ETFs will have to buy and hold a considerable amount of the cryptocurrency they are based on, although we probably talk about fractional reserves since they come from the financial world and they like this kind of system. So, it's likely they will have much higher amounts of fiat from investors for their crypto balances (not a 1:1 balance in dollars). Others may be at 1:1, so we will see.

Anyway, let's assume they are approved and the ETFs buy and hold bitcoin, ethereum or whatever else will ETFs be based on, and prices will rise.

Which makes crypto individuals happy because bags pump.

The idea is these ETFs once they buy crypto they will never sell, most likely, especially for deflationary tokenomics.

They buy bitcoin or ethereum from the unsuspecting crypto individual who wants to mark profits, not understanding there will be fewer and fewer coins to buy lower and repeat the process.

This is where ETFs and institutional investors are bad for crypto and its initial ideals. They will slowly make the markets they enter elitist and inaccessible to small investors. Maybe these small investors want to invest in the ETFs instead?   🤨 

Where ETFs are good is that they will probably be the ones bringing mass adoption. But it won't be mass adoption of crypto, it will be of crypto-based derivatives (like an ETF is). I guess it's better than nothing?

Posted Using [LeoFinance Alpha](https://leofinance.io/@gadrian/sec-vs-bitcoin-etfs)