181 total views
VanEck, one of the ETF & Mutual Fund Manager firms to ever file for a Bitcoin ETF, has once again re-filed for a physically-backed Bitcoin ETF with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) after its first application was rejected.
VanEck seems not to be giving up its fight to be allowed to issue a Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETF). It had filed a similar request with the SEC on November 12, 2021, but the SEC rejected it on the grounds that the Mutual Fund Manager firm did not have the ability to meet the required standards to protect public interest and investors as well as “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.”
Are you looking for fast-news, hot-tips and market analysis?
Sign-up for the Invezz newsletter, today.
However, in the recent filing, VanEck went ahead to provide more reasons as to why the SEC should approve its Bitcoin ETF request.
VanEck’s argument on Bitcoin ETF in the US
According to VanEck, the lack of a currently listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded product in the US does not prevent US Funds from accessing Bitcoin exposure.
In its argument VanEck said:
“Approving this proposal — and others like it — would provide U.S. ETFs and mutual funds with a U.S.-listed and regulated products to provide such access rather than relying on either flawed products or products listed and primarily regulated in other countries.”
Currently, most US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs) use Canadian BTC ETPs to gain Bitcoin exposure. Canada was among the first countries to allow Bitcoin ETF after the launch of the Purpose Bitcoin ETF in February 2021.
According to VanEck’s new filing:
“After issuing the Bitcoin futures approvals which conclude the CME Bitcoin futures market is a regulated market […] the only consistent outcome would be approving spot Bitcoin ETPs on the basis that the Bitcoin futures market is also a regulated market of significant size as it relates to the Bitcoin spot market.”
75.26% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.