SEC Extends Review of Nine Crypto ETF Filings Into October

TheCryptoTimes2025-08-19 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-08-19 tarihinde güncellendi

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has pushed back decisions on a fresh round of cryptocurrency exchange-traded fund (ETF) proposals, leaving Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP funds waiting until October for a verdict.

In notices filed on August 18, the regulator extended its review period for multiple applications, including the Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF, spot Solana ETFs from 21Shares and Bitwise, and the 21Shares Core XRP Trust.

The new decision dates now fall on October 8 for the Truth Social ETF, October 16 for the Solana filings, and October 19 for the XRP trust.

The Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF, first submitted on June 24, is structured as a commodity-based trust that directly holds Bitcoin and Ether. Shares of the fund would be backed by the underlying assets.

Despite its branding under Donald Trump’s Truth Social platform, the product is designed to function in the same way as other spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs already approved in the United States.

The Cboe BZX exchange is also seeking approval for the first spot Solana ETFs in the country, filed separately by 21Shares and Bitwise. These funds would give institutional and retail investors regulated access to Solana’s price movements.

In addition, 21Shares has applied for a Core XRP Trust, a product designed to hold XRP and mirror its market value. The application, initially filed in February, was approaching its 180-day deadline before the SEC extended its review by another 60 days.

Beyond these products, the SEC also pushed back rulings on other crypto-linked filings, including CoinShares’ proposed spot Litecoin ETF and Grayscale’s application for a spot Dogecoin ETF. The regulator has delayed a total of nine applications, with most of the new deadlines set for October.

Bloomberg ETF analysts Eric Balchunas and James Seyffart said the delays appear to reflect the SEC’s broader strategy of developing a framework for digital asset ETFs rather than continuing with the current case-by-case approval system.

Seyffart suggested that the commission is working on creating clear listing standards that would define which digital assets can be wrapped into ETFs and under what criteria.

The approach could provide greater consistency for the growing number of crypto ETF applications, but in the meantime, issuers and investors will have to wait longer for clarity.

Also Read: Grayscale Files with SEC for Dogecoin ETF Under Ticker GDOG

Follow The Crypto Times on Google News to Stay Updated!

Trend Kriptolar

CitreaCTR

wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT

Velodrome FinanceVELODROME

BrevisBREV

ZRX（0X）ZRX

PancakeSwapCAKE

İlgili Okumalar

UK FCA unveils crypto rulebook: Risk-based approach starts October 2027

UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has unveiled a new, risk-based regulatory framework for cryptoasset companies, set to take effect in October 2027. This approach moves away from rigid, uniform rules to a system where capital requirements and disclosure obligations will vary based on a firm's individual risk profile. Companies will conduct their own annual risk assessments and stress tests, subject to FCA review. The rules aim to lower compliance costs for smaller firms, boost market confidence, and attract millions of new UK crypto users. The framework also establishes baseline rules for stablecoin issuers, including consumer protections, while allowing for stricter oversight of larger, systemic players. FCA executives state the rules provide needed clarity, though experts caution that regulation reduces but does not eliminate consumer risks.

ambcrypto37 dk önce

UK FCA unveils crypto rulebook: Risk-based approach starts October 2027

ambcrypto37 dk önce

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit41 dk önce

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit41 dk önce

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 saat önce

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1 saat önce

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot

Popüler Makaleler

F Nasıl Satın Alınır

HTX.com’a hoş geldiniz! Synfutures (F) satın alma işlemlerini basit ve kullanışlı bir hâle getirdik. Adım adım açıkladığımız rehberimizi takip ederek kripto yolculuğunuza başlayın. 1. Adım: HTX Hesabınızı OluşturunHTX'te ücretsiz bir hesap açmak için e-posta adresinizi veya telefon numaranızı kullanın. Sorunsuzca kaydolun ve tüm özelliklerin kilidini açın. Hesabımı Aç2. Adım: Kripto Satın Al Bölümüne Gidin ve Ödeme Yönteminizi SeçinKredi/Banka Kartı: Visa veya Mastercard'ınızı kullanarak anında Synfutures (F) satın alın.Bakiye: Sorunsuz bir şekilde işlem yapmak için HTX hesap bakiyenizdeki fonları kullanın.Üçüncü Taraflar: Kullanımı kolaylaştırmak için Google Pay ve Apple Pay gibi popüler ödeme yöntemlerini ekledik.P2P: HTX'teki diğer kullanıcılarla doğrudan işlem yapın.Borsa Dışı (OTC): Yatırımcılar için kişiye özel hizmetler ve rekabetçi döviz kurları sunuyoruz.3. Adım: Synfutures (F) Varlıklarınızı SaklayınSynfutures (F) satın aldıktan sonra HTX hesabınızda saklayın. Alternatif olarak, blok zinciri transferi yoluyla başka bir yere gönderebilir veya diğer kripto para birimlerini takas etmek için kullanabilirsiniz.4. Adım: Synfutures (F) Varlıklarınızla İşlem YapınHTX'in spot piyasasında Synfutures (F) ile kolayca işlemler yapın.Hesabınıza erişin, işlem çiftinizi seçin, işlemlerinizi gerçekleştirin ve gerçek zamanlı olarak izleyin. Hem yeni başlayanlar hem de deneyimli yatırımcılar için kullanıcı dostu bir deneyim sunuyoruz.

218 Toplam GörüntülenmeYayınlanma 2024.12.21Güncellenme 2026.06.02

Tartışmalar

HTX Topluluğuna hoş geldiniz. Burada, en son platform gelişmeleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olabilir ve profesyonel piyasa görüşlerine erişebilirsiniz. Kullanıcıların F (F) fiyatı hakkındaki görüşleri aşağıda sunulmaktadır.