U.S. SEC Calls for Comments on Spot ETH ETFs

CoinDeskPolicyPublicado em 2024-04-02Última atualização em 2024-04-03

Resumo

The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened up comment periods for ETF applications for Grayscale, Fidelity and Bitwise.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has opened the window for comments on three ether spot exchange traded fund (ETF) proposals.

The ETF efforts tied to Grayscale Investments, Fidelity and Bitwise will be subjected to a three-week comment period, according to notices posted Tuesday by the agency "to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons."

Despite rising hopes after the agency's approval of bitcoin spot ETFs in January, industry analysts have become less optimistic that the regulator will follow suit with the products tracking Ethereum's (ETH). The commission had been pressured into abandoning its earlier opposition of the bitcoin applications after a key loss in a court dispute with Grayscale, and SEC officials had argued that their resulting approval of bitcoin ETFs doesn't apply to other tokens.

Advertisement
Advertisement

SEC Chair Gary Gensler had said in January that the bitcoin approval shouldn't "signal anything about the commission’s views as to the status of other crypto assets under the federal securities laws."

The arrival of the stable of (BTC) ETFs dramatically amplified investments in that token. A similar outcome could be expected for ETH if the agency ever arrives at similar approvals. However, the SEC has reportedly been probing whether ETH should be classified as a security, which would put it on a different legal footing than bitcoin.

May 23 is the deadline for the SEC to make final decisions on some of the ETF applications.

Edited by Nikhilesh De.

Leituras Relacionadas

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

The article explains that the key to profiting on Polymarket, a prediction market platform, lies not just predicting real-world events correctly, but in meticulously understanding the specific rules that govern how each market will be resolved. It illustrates this with examples, such as a market on Venezuela's 2026 leader, where the official rules defining "officially holds" the office overruled the intuitive answer of who was in practical control. Other examples include debates over the definition of a "token" or what constitutes an "agreement." The core argument is that a "reality vs. rules" gap creates pricing discrepancies that savvy traders ("车头" or "whales") exploit. The platform has a formal dispute resolution process managed by UMA token holders to settle ambiguous outcomes. This process involves proposal submission, a challenge window, a discussion period, and a final vote. However, the article highlights a critical flaw in this system compared to a traditional court: the lack of separation between the arbiters (UMA voters) and the interested parties (traders with financial stakes in the outcome). This conflict of interest undermines the discussion phase, leads to herd mentality, and results in opaque final decisions without explanatory rulings. Consequently, the system lacks a body of precedent, making it difficult for users to learn from past disputes. The ultimate takeaway is that success on Polymarket requires a lawyer-like scrutiny of the rules to identify and capitalize on the cognitive gap between how events appear and how they are contractually defined for settlement.

marsbitHá 54m

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

marsbitHá 54m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片