Bankless - Expert's Take: Is a Bitcoin ETF Really Possible? with James Seyffart

Episode Date: July 11, 2023

Today we're joined by James Seyffart, a research analyst at Bloomberg who's the perfect person to answer our questions regarding the convergence of crypto and ETFs. We dive into: - The probabilities of a Blackrock Bitcoin ETF and why - Important dates in which the SEC will need to give us answers - Neutrality, or lack thereof around the ETF approval process ------ 🚀 Join Ryan & David at Permissionless in September. Bankless Citizens get 30% off. 🚀 https://bankless.cc/GoToPermissionless  ------ BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🐙KRAKEN | MOST-TRUSTED CRYPTO EXCHANGE https://k.xyz/bankless-pod-q2 🦊METAMASK PORTFOLIO | TRACK & MANAGE YOUR WEB3 EVERYTHING https://bankless.cc/MetaMask  ⚖️ ARBITRUM | SCALING ETHEREUM https://bankless.cc/Arbitrum 🛞MANTLE | MODULAR LAYER 2 NETWORK https://bankless.cc/Mantle 👾POLYGON | VALUE LAYER OF THE INTERNET https://polygon.technology/roadmap  ------ TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Intro 7:44 What is an ETF? 13:00 ETF History Lesson 17:40 ETF Market Size and Holders 22:46 Types of ETFs 27:02 Where Are These Assets Stores 34:04 Who Approves ETFs? 40:08 Neutrality Of Regulators 44:16 Types of Bitcoin ETFs 49:17 Reasons For Rejection 55:12 Does Gary Just Hate Crypto? 58:13 Does Blackrock Change Things? 1:04:46 Will Blackrock Get Approved? 1:15:20 Possible Approval Dates 1:19:09 Lack of ETFs to Blame For Crypto Fallout? 1:28:38 Why Should we Care? 1:34:14 Risks and Disclaimers ------ RESOURCES James on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JSeyff  Trillions Podcast: https://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/series/trillions  ------ Not financial or tax advice. This channel is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. This video is not tax advice. Talk to your accountant. Do your own research. Disclosure. From time-to-time I may add links in this newsletter to products I use. I may receive commission if you make a purchase through one of these links. Additionally, the Bankless writers hold crypto assets. See our investment disclosures here: ⁠https://www.bankless.com/disclosures⁠

Yeah, let's be, I'll be very blunt. If you look at all the things that they have said and written over the last three years, this will be denied. But there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests that it will be approved. It goes back to what I said. They can back into whatever decision they want to. Okay. So all it takes them. You said two things there, James.

I want to be clear. When Bitcoin ETF. That is the question on our mind today. Is the Bitcoin ETF actually happening? or not will it happen this year or not. BlackRock Fidelity, some of the largest ETF issuers in the world have now submitted filings for ETFs with the SEC. Is Gary Gensler going to let them through?

And at this point, can he even say no? That's the question we raise with James Safert. He's a Bloomberg analyst who's tracking this thing closer than anyone I've ever met. He's on the episode today. And he gives us a date by which we should have a clean answer. answer from the SEC on the Bitcoin ETF. So is he over or under on the probability of the SEC approving a Bitcoin ETF this year? You have to listen to the entire conversation to find out. I'm psyched about this episode. And before we begin, I want to address a question that some of you

might have, which is, why is bankless even covering the Bitcoin ETF? That's not very bankless of you, you might say. I disagree with that. And here's why. I think when people buy crypto assets, they buy into crypto values. Not all the way, not all at once, but a little bit at a time. This is just another step forward. Crypto ETFs in my mind are a gateway drug, a type of gateway drug. I don't think people will stop with just the Bitcoin ETF in their retirement account. I think that's the gateway to them setting up an exchange account, for instance, and buying spot Bitcoin or spot ether that way, which is the gateway to going full bankless and taking custody of their own keys. In order for people to care about crypto, they actually have to own crypto.

And this is an easy way for people to own crypto in their retirement accounts. When we get more crypto ownership, we get more economic security. And we get more people who care about crypto issues in their respective jurisdictions. We need a lot more people to care about crypto in the United States in order to turn the regulatory tide. There's one other thing I think we get from this episode, which is learning more about traditional finance. How is crypto supposed to eat traditional finance and disruptive? We don't even understand how it works. Like, do you understand how ETFs work today? What backs them? Why people love them? Why they're popular? I didn't. And that's where we start this episode with James. This is a college level course on ETFs,

from their birth in the early 90s to the Bitcoin Spot ETF and the possibility of that today. I'm doing this episode solo today. David is off climbing mountains, but he'll be back soon. and he'll certainly be back in time for an event that you should pay attention to. It's called Permissionless. This is the Crypto Conference to go to in 2023. If you only pick one, and I think you should pick one, the bare market conferences are the best conferences. You've got to come with David, myself, the rest of the Bankless Nation,

to Permissionless. It's happening in Austin, Texas, September 11th through the 13th. So that's Texas, Austin, September 11th through the 13th. And we have an absolutely stacked agenda. We've got Eric Voorhees who's talking. We've got Hester Peirce from the SEC Commission. We've got Stani from Avey. Go click the link in the show notes, get a ticket, and come with us to permissionless this year.

All right guys, it's time to go find out about this Bitcoin ETF. We'll be right back with James. But before we do, I want to thank the sponsors that made this episode possible, including Cracken, the number one crypto exchange I recommend to all of my friends and family. this is the way to get onboarded to crypto. Go create an account. Cracken Pro has easily become the best crypto trading platform in the industry. The place I use to check the charts and the crypto prices, even when I'm not looking to place a trade.

On Cracken Pro, you'll have access to advanced charting tools, real-time market data and lightning fast trade execution, all inside their spiffy new modular interface. Cracken's new customizable modular layout lets you tailor your trading experience to suit your needs. Pick and choose your favorite modules and place them anywhere you want in your screen. With Cracken Pro, you have that power.

Whether you are a season pro or just starting out, join thousands of traders who trust Cracken Pro for their crypto trading needs. Visit pro.crakken.com to get started today. Enter Mantle, an entire ecosystem dedicated to the adoption of decentralized token-governed technologies. Mantle, formerly known as BitDow, is the first Dow-led Web3 ecosystem, all built on top of Mantle's first core product, the Mantle Network, a brand-new high-performance Ethereum Layer 2 built differently from the other layer 2 that you may be familiar with. Mantle asks the question, how would you build a layer two if you had the technology of 2023? Mantle network is a modular layer two built using the OP stack, but uses eigenlayers data availability solution instead of the expensive Ethereum layer one. Not only does this reduce

Mantle network's gas fees by 80% compared to other layer twos, but it also reduces gas fee volatility, providing a more stable foundation for Mantle's applications. The Mantle treasury is one of the biggest Dow-owned treasuries in Defy, which is seeding an ecosystem of projects from all around the Web3 space for Mantle. Mantle already has sub-communities from around Web3 onboarded to help the growth of Mantle, like Game 7 for Web3 gaming

or Edu-DOW for in the world of D-Sye and buy-bit for TBL and liquidity and on-rest. So if you want to build on the Mantle network, Mantle is offering a grants program that provides milestone-based funding to promising projects that help expand, secure, and decentralize Mantle. If you want to get started working with the first

Dow-led layer-2 ecosystem, check out Mantle at mantle.xy-Z. and follow them on Twitter at ZeroX Mantle. Are you planning to launch a token? Is your token already live? And are you granting your employees and contractors vesting token awards? And are you trying to figure out how to take care of taxable events for your team? Toku makes implementing a global token incentive award simple.

With Toku, you will get unmatched legal and tax support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Toku will help you navigate across the lifecycle of your token from easy-to-to-use pre-launch token grant award templates to managing post-cliff taxable events with payroll. For legal, finance, and HR teams, it's a huge complex task to have to comply with labor laws, payroll, and tax obligations, tax reporting, and crypto regulations in every country that you employ someone. It's difficult, time-consuming, manual, and costly, and it's drawing more attention from global regulators and governments. Toku makes it simple for leading companies in the space, Protocol Labs, Hedera, Gitcoin, and many more, to manage their token complexities. So, if you are interested in signing up with Toku, check out Toku.com slash bankless, or click the link in the district. description below. Bankless Nation, the question on our mind today is a Bitcoin ETF happening.

We have an expert who can weigh in on this. James Saferd is a research analyst at Bloomberg. He's got one foot in crypto and the other foot in ETFs. He's currently a Bloomberg intelligence ETF analyst, and he's here to drop some insight on the question I just opened with. When are we going to get that Bitcoin ETF? James, welcome to bankless. Thanks for having me, Ryan. Happy to be here. You know, we talk a lot about crypto. on bank lists, of course. And so I think it's in some people, some listeners, they got their first exposure to finance by way of crypto.

Actually, my co-host, David Hoffman, is very much like this. So I don't know if David's ever purchased an ETF in his life. And I think there's probably some bankless listeners that fall into that camp, too. So could we start by going through some of the basics? What is an ETF? I think I know the acronym. Does that stand for Exchange Traded Fund? Is that correct?

And what is this thing that we're talking about today? That is 100% correct. So it's exchange-traded fund. It's basically people, a lot of people have 401Ks, 403Bs, these types of plans, at least in the U.S. And usually what you're investing in is a mutual fund. And those have much longer tickers within X at the end, typically. But essentially, what that means is those funds are not traded. So you give money, and at the end of the day, they put that money to work the next day for when your money comes in.

And for mutual funds, for 401Ks and plans like that, it makes complete sense. It's easy. You're not usually super time commitment because you're just contributing on a regular basis. But an ETF is a traded vehicle. And basic, the real story here is that the ETFs were invented after the SEC wrote a report. In 1987, there was this big crash. A lot of it had to do with futures and derivatives. And the SEC said, basically, they wish they had something that was more physically backed

rather than derivatives or derivative of different assets. and basically this guy Nate Most came up with the idea for what is now an ETF. And it comes off the idea of these things called commodity warehouse receipts. Those have been around forever. And the idea of commodity warehouse receipts, if you think about it this way, is like say you had a bunch of gold or a bunch of barrels of oil or whatever wheat, corn, you name it, right? And one thing that you used to be able to do is you would store that somewhere.

And then the warehouse would charge some sort of fee. And in return, they'd give you pieces of paper that say you have. have this much exposure or it was a vault or gold. You would say you have this much gold. And rather than moving that physical gold, those physical commodities around, you trade those pieces of paper. So those pieces of paper were a right to those things held in that warehouse. And that's where the idea of an ETF came about.

And basically the first one in the U.S. was the S&P 500. And it basically, instead of commodities being held in that warehouse, it's stocks or the S&P 500, the stocks that make up the S&P 500 held in by a custodian. So those stocks are held by somebody. And what that means is at all times, the key thing that makes an ETF work and why it's super efficient is because you can always access those underlying stocks. Or in the example, the commodities, you can always those access, those underlying commodities. So basically, those shares are a right to your ownership of the underlying asset.

So in the SMP 500 ETF, you can always trade in shares of the ETF and get back the underlying stocks. In a potential Bitcoin ETF, it would be the same way. You could always trade in the shares of the ETF and get back Bitcoin, or, vice versa, you can always trade in Bitcoin and get back shares. And what that means is, we can get into this more, but like one thing that I'm sure a lot of your viewers have heard about is GBTC, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust. That operates more like what we, what in our world we would call a closed-end fund. It's technically not one, but it means ETS have that mechanism where you can create shares and redeem shares because always the underlying can be exchanged for

the shares of the product, right? So in Grayscale's case, there's no way to access the underlying Bitcoin. I can't hand over GBTC shares and get back Bitcoin, which is what Grayscale is suing to do to try and get access to that mechanism so that you don't have a situation where the price of those shares is very different from the value of the underlying assets they hold. So when you have an ETF, that problem doesn't happen because you can always, at some point, if somebody thinks the price of the ETF is not in line with the underlying asset, you can buy those shares of the ETF or buy up the underlying asset and exchange them. It's called arbitrage. They're always the same thing. So basically, there's some trading costs. So there's minute differences there.

But for the most part, you can always exchange shares for assets. And that's what's causing a lot of the problems in different parts of the market. So the way to think about an ETF is if you're used to looking at stocks or even cryptos really, right, you know the supply. So for the most part, Bitcoin's a bad example since its supply is ever increasing. But if you look at a stock, typically the supply of shares is relatively stable, right? You know what it is, and what drives the price is that change in demand. So if you think about like two bars in a graph, basically what drives the price of most assets is the change in demand, right?

Obviously, supply impacts it as well. The benefit of ETFs is as demand changes, you can change supplies. You can add more shares to meet demand. And if demand drops, you can destroy shares to meet demand. So that way, the price and the value of the underlying assets. So the price of the fund, the price of the price, the value of the underlying assets are always going to be very close. So that's the background of an UTIF and why so many people view this as like the key

to the holy grail for crypto and bridge to the tradfi. You just opened up probably a thousand questions in my mind, and you want to get to them. That last point that you mentioned, I want to draw an analogy for bankless listeners. So as the demand changes, you can increase the supply, USDC, you know, a stable coin kind of works like that. as well. Think of that, right? So how much USDC can be minted? Well, kind of pretty much, as long as the U.S. continues to give access to Coinbase and circle to U.S. bank accounts is kind of an unlimited supply. It's as much as the market will demand. And it sounds like ETFs work that way, too. So a few things, just to recap. So this is a newish product, I guess,

in the full scope of financial products. You said it sounds like it was invented maybe in the late 1980s so kind of took off. 93 was the first one. So technically I told you about that guy Nate Most. Yeah. He actually went. The first ETF ever launched was technically in Canada a few years because the SEC took like three years to get comfortable with the idea. No way. They've done this before.

Yeah. So Canada did it first in like 91 after talking with Nate Most and these guys. So they got it done in like a year. And then we came along afterwards in the U.S. and finally figured it out. But yeah. So 93 was the first time. And along the whole way, there's been people question. the structure saying it was going to cause issues, and they've done nothing but prove themselves as an efficient. The way to think about it is it's a wrapper, and it's a technology in a way. It's a democratizing technology in the way it's been used in the traditional finance space. It's interesting that people would say that this would cause issues because it actually seems

much simpler than the other kind of like price exposure mechanisms based on derivatives and that sort of thing. It's like because it's pretty simple. It's just a wrapper for underlying assets, right? So like what can go wrong? Yeah. So we don't need to get. too far into the weeds here, but essentially a lot of the people say, like, if you're looking at bonds, so there's bond, ETFs, they hold other assets that are less liquid than typical stocks. But so people, like, think you're adding liquidity. There's a lot of nuance here, but essentially what it comes down to is in the good times, an ETF can be way more liquid than the underlying

because people don't have to go and access the underlying market to trade it, right? They can just use the ETF shares, and sometimes it just trades back and forth. There's a lot of market makers that can handle that. But in times of stress that, like, excess liquidity the ETF offers is not going to be there. It's not magic. So basically, if the underlying market freezes up, like happened in March of 2020 during COVID, those, they basically, the ETFs don't aren't, they're not magic. So if the underlying market is locked up, there's going to be issues with the ETF. But with an ETF, you can always trade. So basically, like, yes, in the good times, there's more liquidity because the ETF is there. It's operating on exchange. There's market makers. There's always bids in.

mass. So if you think about a bond market, it's mostly over-the-counter traded, like literally some of it's like phone calls still. Like, that's the way things are traded still. But like basically what happens is like the ETF will look like it's dislocated, but what really ends up happening is just the underlying market is out of whack. There's not enough liquidity. Nobody's willing to buy or sell or there's just mismatch of what's going on. So there's plenty of examples of things like that that that happened in March 2020, but all the ETFs in the U.S. and around the world have held up extremely well and were perfect beacons of efficiency during that time. They really, like, proved their metal.

Even some of their most ardent critics even had to come step back and admit, like, they did extremely well in handling the issues we saw. You sound like an ETF bull, my friend. Are you like, do you like this asset? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, one of the things we've always said is, like, we're going to get into a lot of this, but, like, if the SEC had approved this thing,

honestly, all the people and these markets, these market makers that operate in this market, like, they're not going to let some of the fishy stuff that has been going on in crypto. Like they're going to go to the exchanges that are operating cleanly. They're not going to get involved in a lot of the other things that plenty of people have been involved in this space. So if we do get one, it's going to clean things up.

It's going to drive down trading costs. ETS trade like penny wide, very, very tight. So there's no transaction fees on most brokerage platforms. And then if you look at most brokerage platforms, they don't really tell you what the bid S spread is. You can kind of back into it by looking at like what the trading looks like on Coinbase or Binance or any of. of those things, right? But there is a spread. So you know you're paying a fee typically to do the

trade. And then there's also a spread between what the bid and the ask is. And like usually market makers are making that money. So there's a lot of money to be made in offering markets in the crypto markets. And when an ETF comes about, it's going to get way tighter. So you'll see a lot of people who trade Bitcoin specifically in crypto markets to learn to start to use the ETF. And vice versa. People from the ETF world will probably go to the underlying crypto markets and make things more efficient and more liquid because you have the behemoths of the U.S. trading and financial system come in. I think I was first exposed to kind of the ETF concept just, just, you know, earlier in my

sort of, you know, adulthood and early investing career through like Vanguard Group and John Bogle, like the idea that, hey, you know what, you don't have to like outperform the market. You just buy an index fund, buy a low cost index fund of some sort and you'll outperform, you know, like 80% of active traders out there. And so it's always been a good concept. And of course, you want to keep your management fees low. And my understanding is a lot of ETFs can somewhat provide that. So that's what, is that a reason? And I want to ask you, who are the holders of these ETFs? Is it like kind of large pension funds? Is it sort of big money capital pools? Or is it mainly like individual Americans, like retail investors with a Fidelity account or Schwab account,

with their 40K money, as you alluded to earlier. Who are the net buyers of these things? So really, that's the beauty of the ETF. It's everyone. So in the old mutual fund world, what you're used to looking at in your 401k or whatever it might be if you're a U.S. listener, there are multiple share classes.

So you need to invest a certain amount of money to get access to this lower fee because you get these other things, right, economies of scale, whatever. So they have all these different share classes, A, B, C, I, for institutional. there's different things, right? But what the ETF did is it democratized at all.

So everyone's playing in the same pool. So if your grandma wants to buy an ETF, she's buying the same ETF as Citadel, if they're looking to trade that, or some other big hedge fund or pension or PE fund. So really everyone is involved in this. And that's the beauty of the ETF ecosystem because it incorporates everyone.

So you have all the liquidity from the big TradFi players who are looking to make short-term trades alongside the mom and pops you were talking about, who some of them might be looking to, do short-term trades. A lot of them are just looking to buy and hold, like you were talking about low-cost ETFs and hold them for a very long time. They can get exposure. And part of the reason they can be so cheap is because so many people are using them, so many different types of people are using them. How big is the ETF market James in terms of assets inside of ETFs? Are we talking

hundreds of billions? Are we getting into the trillions here? Yeah, no, we're definitely a trillion. So like we're right around 10 trillion globally, but most of that is in the U.S. I believe we have, I'm looking it up right now. I think we have seven. I think we're right around $7 trillion in the U.S. alone. I'll tell you the exact number, $7.25 trillion. Where do you find that info? Is that like a Bloomberg terminal? Yeah, that's a Bloomberg function.

But I probably vetifyetf.com, things like that, will probably have that type of information, but the global markets like over 10 as well. But you've got to remember that includes, like it holds stocks, they're just going to hold bonds, it'll hold treasuries, commodities, everything you can think of, it has basically been thrown into an UTF wrapper. Even crypto's just not in the U.S.

Right, right. We'll get there to crypto. We're building here, building our understanding here. Okay, so $10 trillion worldwide. How much of that would you guess is kind of like retail mom and pops versus like the big guys? It's hard. So a lot of the, so if you look at the way the U.S. market works,

like for the most part, a lot of the money is via advisors and platforms. So we can't see exactly how much is retail, but a lot of people will use advisors. So roughly we estimate right now that U.S. advisors, the people that are helping, like if you went to somebody to help you manage your money, right, they control about $30 trillion in assets, and they love ETFs, specifically independent advisors. So the way the old mutual funds I keep talking about used to be sold is there was basically a kickback.

So if you put your client into this fund, you got some money out of it and possibly into perpetuity and different things like that. So basically mutual funds were sold by people that were. wholesalers and trying to get advisors to put their clients in those funds because they get more money. Everyone, basically, the money is kicked back all over the place. ETSs, it's not some of that kind of happens, but it's not directly the case. It's more that ETS are bought. So advisors are huge owners of this.

Hedge funds like to use these things. Institutions are using these things to park money for the most part because they're super low cost. So retail, we don't have a clear breakdown on that front, but it's a decent chunk, I would say at least 30%, probably more, just because a lot of it is buy and hold. But there's also plenty of ETS that are not built to be bought and held. Some of them are built to be traded. And like I said, the SEC came about this because they wanted an alternative to futures and different things that were happening. So they wanted people to be able to use these in trade. And there are some ETS out

there, like the S&B 500 from Spy and plenty of others that we refer to as like pseudo-futures, where institutions are using them for liquidity. So like they got a certain amount of money. And they can't put it to work fully in exactly what they want to. So they're going to throw it into an ETF. Or like you even have mutual funds, some of those guys that are talking about that are picking bonds, picking stocks. And what they'll do is they'll pick, they'll hold an ETF in like 3% of their portfolio or 4% of their portfolio.

If they're a large cap manager, they'll hold a large cap equity ETF. If they're a high yield bond manager, they'll hold a high yield corporate bond ETF. And basically they just use that like sleeve, almost if you think about it as a moat around their portfolio. They're picking the bonds they think are going to outperform the most, give them the best, whatever characteristics they're looking for. And then rather than holding cash, which is what they did historically, which doesn't give them exposure to the market, it's called cash drag.

Actually, in the last couple of years, it might not have been that bad with the way rates have gone. But essentially, what they do is they want to have exposure to the market, but they know that ETFs are super liquid. So I keep going back. Like, everyone uses this. People across the traditional financial ecosystem are using ETFs in many different ways. Yeah.

And I'm looking at kind of a list of different ETFs. And you probably have a better list in your head. but you basically buy any collection, any set of assets in an ETF. So we mentioned, you know, the spy. It's an S&P 500 index if you want in general stock index in the U.S. You know, there's a NASDAQ. We've got equity precious metals. So you can buy a gold ETF.

I'm sure you could buy silver. I'm sure there's all sorts of other commodities you can buy. Platinum, you name it. Yeah, I know. I've seen, you know, certainly, yeah, oil ETFs as well. if you kind of want to go down the commodity stack, real estate, ETFs of various types. I don't know if it gets as specific as like, let's say I want to bet on the real estate market in California.

Maybe that's a bit too specific, but, you know, maybe they have something like that. Actually, they do have some stuff. They have muni bonds that focus on, they have muni bonds that hold focus on that. So you could bet on the California muni market. But also, like, basically there are those real estate ones. They don't own physical real estate. They own REITs with the real estate investment trusts, which have been all of the news lately because public reits are trading very different from private reeds.

But ETS will wrap those things as well and hold them, so give you exposure. So maybe one reed specializes in like the southwest United States, so they'll have California, Arizona, whatever. And so if that's what you're after, you could just buy the reed, that's kind of similar to like buying a stock. And these will give you like, here's the U.S. market or here's a reet for like multifamily homes or stuff like that. It's becoming sliced and diced in different ways.

There are reeds out there that focus specifically on like retail warehouses or data warehouses that hold all these servers. So like they own the real estate and people rent those warehouses to put all their servers in them. And that, that has been one of the best performing areas of the read market. So like there's ETFs that specifically target that. So yeah, there's ETFs that basically target money markets. Can you just buy like dollars in an ETF or something? Could you buy? Yeah. There's actually. Yeah. So there's some dollar ETFs that like basically they, the way those work though isn't like they're just holding dollars. There are money market fund ETFs elsewhere. There's money market funds obviously that are earned ETFs. For the most part,

People just use like Treasury ETS if they're looking for that type of exposure. Because it just holds treasuries, the Treasury bills specifically. You can look at T-bill ETFs. But yeah, there are some money market ETFs in Canada, just not in the U.S. yet. But again, you get those T-bill type ETS and they give you a very similar exposure. Otherwise, there's ones that basically you can bet on the direction of the U.S. dollars. So it'll go like long U.S. dollar futures and then shorts a basket of other currency futures. sort of short, the Great British pound, the Japanese yen, the euro, Brazilian Real, like,

you name it. So it'll tell you what it's going along and what it's going short. And that's how you could bet like tactically on where the dollar's going. All right. For crypto natives, crypto listeners, Tradfi, you thought of this idea of tokenization before crypto did. This looks a lot like tokenization of different assets, doesn't it? Okay. So this other point that you raised, which is like the thing that's different about ETFs is you can always access. the underlying assets. I think that will come into play when we talk a little bit about crypto. Again, we're still building to the crypto conversation, James. But this idea of you can always access the underlying assets. I want to get into the details of that, right? So for something like stocks,

it's weird. It's interesting because like when we say the underlying assets, what are we talking about actually? Like pieces of paper or like legal documents somewhere? I want to contrast that from a commodity like gold or like oil, for example, where they, underlying asset at the root of it is much more clear. The underlying asset is like a barrel of oil somewhere in a warehouse. You know, you hope at least. So actually, so for oil, it's, you mentioned, I mean, I was debating saying this before, but like oil, one of the, we, we like to call some ETSs or like wolves and sheep's clothing because they look like they're simple. There are no ETS that hold physical oil because you can't really store it. It costs too much money. There's a multitude of

reasons. There are some people, like I know some people who are thinking they want to give it a try, but really all the warehouse oil. Warehouse oil? Yeah. The actual warehouse oil? Yeah, they want, but the only way to really get the oil ETS work is they, they roll, they invest in futures. They invest in derivatives, which is how a lot of commodity ETS also work, except for those precious metal ones you were talking about. And there are some others, but. All right. So let's talk about those.

So first, let's talk about maybe the precious metal ones. So if I buy a gold ETF of some sort, where is the actual gold bar, you know, stored? And can I actually, like, can I actually redeem that for gold? You said it's always able to access the underlying assets. I want to convert my gold ETF into like, you know, a physical bar of gold. Am I actually able to do that or there's some intermediaries in between here? Yeah. So this is going to get in the weeds of like market mechanics of ETFs a little bit.

So I'll do my best to keep it simple. But essentially the way to think about it is there are there's a few people involved in a creation redemption process. So usually it's what we refer to as a market maker. of those is the big trading firms, the Citadel's, if people out there have heard of, obviously people have heard of Jane Street, if you're listening to your show, Virtue. Those are big ETF market makers. They're pairing trades and they will access the underlying if they have to make a trade happen or it's more efficient to do it that way than just sourcing the actual shares in the exchange. So I keep saying at any point you can access the underlying market to

create a redeem shares. These market makers know that and they know what's more efficient. Is it more efficient to just source the actual ETF shares or is it more efficient to go to the underlying market and make this happen? Sometimes the buy is so big that there's not enough shares to be demand. So they have to go to the underlying market to make it. That might be a little more costly. Or it could be more efficient in buying those that many shares in the market. It's the same thing as a big whale comes to a crypto market and buys a ton of Bitcoin. You're going to blow through the price. But if you could theoretically figure out a way to buy Bitcoin more efficiently, that's how you would do it. But the way this works is those are the market makers. There's also something called

an authorized participant, which has been in the gray scale situation as well. And the APs are the people that facilitate that creation. These are the huge banks with massive balance sheets. Think Bank of America, Goldman. There's a whole bunch of APs out there. Merrill Lynch, they'll basically, like, they are the people that facilitate that creation of shares and redemption of shares that work with the issuers that own these ETFs. Now, for the most part, it's these market makers and these APs that are making sure that the market is efficient in the underlying, if you need to tap the underlying market, whether it's to create ETF shares or destroy ETF shares, they're the ones doing it. So the market makers are constantly trading every day.

They're dealing with the APs. The APs are dealing with the issuers. In some instances, not to get too wonky, the market makers can be an AP as well. But essentially, it's these people, these institutions that have specific licenses to operate in whatever markets that can operate in those markets and make the creations and redemptions. That said, that's the way most things work. Because for the most part, you need like 100,000 shares of the ETF to do a creation a redemption, right? So these are big, so like if you, if you, that was what make like you, or I or actually, I don't know, maybe you're a whale, but like if you wanted to buy an ETF, it's these people on the back end that are batching the entire market together to make

sure it's operating it efficiently. There's very low cost to trade. All of those things, they're making sure that the ETFs are created or destroyed for demand to meet supply. Now that said, there are ETFs out there like OUNZ for gold ETFs. This is a gold ETF. and basically the creation and redemptions are way lower, the minimum. So, like, there is going to be a cost. If you owned enough, you could get gold delivered to your house. But that's, like, a special exemption that they went through to get to happen. But also, like, most ETSs hold their gold in vaults in London.

There is one that holds it in Switzerland. There is an ETF that used to hold it at the Perth Mint in Australia. So there's, like, all these different ways you can do it. Everyone has different custodians, but gold is, like, a unique subset. So some people, like the true gold bugs are like, I don't trust anyone to hold my gold. There's a lot of issues where people are worried about paper gold with futures. But for the most part, the gold has to be stored in the vault, and every share of the ETS should be backed by physical gold.

Now, sometimes the trading is literally like some guy in London goes into the vault for the spider GLD and takes gold out and moves it to the vault down the street for like some other trading firm or gold trading firm or whatever, what may have you. but like on to our view like that's gold leaving the trust that we we were interested in or the one we were looking at and going into a different one right that's a creation of redemption so hopefully they're using a brink's truck or some you know security apparatus for that for that transfer but okay so no and literally sometimes it's the same building like it's just literally a different like it's moving it from one fault to another and if they didn't if they didn't move it would we really know yeah who knows yeah yeah yeah okay so there are there are There is like auditing and stuff. And I'd like to think it's better than the auditing we've seen in the next. Well, it couldn't get worse with respect to FDX and the Cussi. But what's interesting is like we have, you know, as with crypto, we have like with the gold

example, we have an actual bare asset, which is like when you have it, like it's kind of valuable. Like that's the thing. Possession is the asset itself. It's not like equity. It's not a legal agreement or something like that that's enforced by some sort of, you know, legal code. It is actual physical possession. But there's a clean separation of responsibilities in kind of ETFs. You mentioned the APs. You mentioned the kind of the market makers. And then a third

group, you said, is kind of the custody providers, whether that's a, you know, somewhere in Perth, in Australia, or that's some vault in London. These are not the same entities, right? Like the vault is not the AP is not the market maker. Generally, there's some clear division of responsibilities. Is that approximately right? That is correct, which is one of the things that the SEC is going after Coinbase for in this lawsuit. They want them to break up their brokerages, their custody, all those things into separate legal entities. Cool. You know, I appreciate that Coinbase, or sorry, the SEC is like asking for these things, but it's also not providing a clear way to actually do it, which is this weird scenario we're in. Okay, but so if I own a gold ETF,

It's pretty much like, it's pretty rare to own an ETF where I could actually get the gold bar delivered to my house. Maybe there's kind of one of those. Well, so for the average person, if you had millions of dollars in there, you could absolutely get the gold, right? Like, you could, like, it would not be a problem. But like for the average person who's not going to have millions of dollars in this ETF. I don't even know. With gold, it's so weird, though. It's like, let's say I had millions of dollars of gold, like, what, I just show up with my, like, minivan or something?

Like, load up the bag. Yeah, so like Canada specifically does, they have ETS that do this as well. The Canadian Royal Mint has had, they're actually, I don't even think they're technically ETS, but they operate like ETS. Yeah. You can do the same thing, right? You can get it delivered to your house, essentially. Like, I don't know exactly what it looks like, but I imagine like basically a Brink truck

would show up. But I'm sure if you're moving enough money, it's not, you're not going to have it delivered to your house. Okay. But, yeah, you could, but Bitcoin obviously is different because of the way it's transmitted and stored and we can get into that. And to be clear, who is responsible for approving ETFs? Who's kind of the gatekeeper? Is this somebody in government? Is this always the SEC? You have to go not. You have to register. There are different divisions in the SEC that make

these decisions on different ETFs, but it's always the SEC. The one that we're specifically these issuers are dealing with right now. And the one that has been the traditional holdup is a place called the division of markets and trading. But it's really the SEC and it comes down to Gary Gensler. he's the overarching head if basically they do what he says for the most part so uh gary gonzler or the current whatever whoever the current chair of the cc is basically emperor king of like um well you know giving the this final sign off for an etf is that it yeah pretty much but the thing is here like the way that the there you might have seen like notice about like some of these republican senators who are pro crypto trying to change the way the SEC is set up but basically there's there's

um four commissioners and then also chairman and usually it's two republicans to democrats that's the way it works so then the chairman is the one that has like the overriding power because typically it's two verse two so theoretically if you were if somebody was able to swing which i wrote about in one of my notes one of these commissioners basically that that could change things as well because like gary would be outvoted but though hester purse which i'm sure anyone listening knows who that is crypto mom she has dissented on multiple ETF denials in the past. The most recent dissent came this year, and for the first time the new commissioner

joined her in her dissent of the SEC's decision to deny Vanek. And I think it was Vanek, this most recent one. But whoever it was, they wrote a dissent letter, kind of like you would see from, like, the Supreme Court dissent from judges that disagree. So if they get one of those other commissioners to agree with them, one of those two Dems against Gary, then all of a sudden this thing is likely to get approved. So it's not as cut and dry as like Gensler is fully in charge, but like 95% chance that Gensler is the one making decisions here. Because and you got to remember he reports to the Democratic Party, right?

Think Elizabeth Warren. There's a lot of jokes about her like getting orders from Elizabeth Warren, but there really is a lot of ties to that side of the Democratic Party and what's going on here. But let's draw that out because shouldn't the ETF process or maybe I'm asking a question of historically how has it been? who are the issuers of ETFs, who are filing and asking for the SEC's permission to do this? This is a small collection of very large companies, or is it pretty distributed and diverse? And what's the process? I would assume that we've had a process in place for regulators to be somewhat neutral and to have kind of guidelines and rules. But they can't, I would assume, they can't necessarily pick winners or losers.

right like i have friends at black rock uh versus like you know i hate goldman or whatever and i'm going to choose one issuer over the other what's this approval process been like historically for uh traditional finance so let's just say that they can do that and they do do that and i'll go into why they do that but they basically can make the decision and back into it legally but wait they can be biased however they want the technically they shouldn't be but they can are they would have to prove it and i that gray scale's trying to prove that in court right now right but for the most part they have been biased and some of the things that they're doing um and it's definitely coming down from what the democratic side of the the ticket wants to have so it's already been politicized prior

to crypto you would say is this like kind of like a part of it so like on the inside yeah so i would say like the winklevalls twins tried to do this first in 2013 right they were small they got denied They tried again. They ended up get denied again in 2018. That was the first time that Hester Perce dissented on a decision. I would argue that the denial then actually kind of made sense

because the way that the Winkle-Vos application was constructed. We don't need to get into the weeds on that. But it's a lot of different issues. So I'm looking now. I have 40 different filings for spot ETFs and 37 different filings for futures ETS. What do you mean you have them?

You're just seeing them in some Q and a database. I just looked at a list. Yeah, I have a list of like, it's literally an Excel. red sheet of where I track them and I can look at the links and see what the SEC is saying about them and all the above. I try to track everything that's going on. It's basically, so when I first came to BI, I was covering commodities and we added crypto and I had already owned crypto personally. I was interested in it personally, and I reported to Mike McGlone, who's a commodities analyst,

who covers crypto heavily as a strategist, and then I reported to Eric Belchunis, who is my boss, who covers ETFs. And eventually I got moved up and I'm specifically in the ETF side, but that experience of my personal experience covering crypto from a strategy side of point of view and having all my ETF knowledge made this like ETF potential fund, uh, crypto stuff was like my squarely in my wheelhouse. Um, so that's why like I was tracking this stuff already on my own and it was made a complete no brain to start writing about it. So how many on those list are crypto related in your queue?

Do you say it was like 40 or so? A total. So a lot of them have been denied. There's only eight that are currently active for on the spot side. But if you look at all the filings, you're at, let me see. Yeah, you're at 40 plus 37. You're at 77 total filings. And like 30-ish issuers.

How many filings so far, if you include the ones that have been denied and are active? And these are Bitcoin ETF, to be clear. Not just Bitcoin, they're crypto. Some of them are Eat Futures ETF. A couple of them are each spot, which had no shot of ever getting approved. I guess people figured they'd try. but yeah, 77 different filings. And there's some others that you could argue that are kind of like crypto ETS, but they're a little,

they might hold a little bit of futures, but they also hold some other stuff. But yes, 77 different ETS are, have either been approved, denied, or are kind of like in limbo right now waiting to see if they get approved. Well, jumping back to that question about the neutrality of kind of a regulator, like how are they supposed to go through the process of approving an issuer, and then also contrast that with how it happens practically for requests outside of crypto? Yeah, so the SEC is supposed to be a disclosure regulator. They're not just merit regulators. So there are some countries that have merit regulators that decide whether an investment has any merit and should be allowed. The SEC's

job is to do basically have they disclosed all the risk. They're not saying, whether or not something is a good or bad investment. And that's stated in the law that... Yeah, this is around the formation of the SEC. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So Hester has written dissents saying we're getting dangerously close to being a merit regulator, which is a key term that, like, I think a lot of people don't realize how strong that statement is, but they're really doing a really good job of towing that line.

And I would argue they've kind of crossed it, but it's more of a gray zone than like a black and white. They're saying this is a bad investment, which is not something they should do. Okay. So they're supposed to be basically. a neutral regulator. They're not supposed to make merit-based decisions. And what that means effectively is, you know,

they may personally think that gold is just a, you know, a shit coin asset or whatever. It's like completely useless. They might hate it. But they cannot, you know, have that determination in their rulings, right? They have to be neutral with respect to what they decide to allow retail ETF investors, not all ETF investors exposure to or not. And that's different than some other regulatory apparatuses outside of the United States. Is that approximately correct? Yeah. So the way to think

about it is their job is to prevent fraud, manipulation, anybody getting taken advantage of. That's what they're there to do. They want to make sure that's not happening. And honestly, some of the stuff that they've done that has been questionable has probably saved some people from getting rugged that's happened in the crypto space. But I would also make the argument that they should have been going after these actors before anything ever happened. But that's a whole different discussion. But the way that the process works. So there's two ways that this works. So basically, this all goes back to the 1933 Act and the 1940 Act, which are just laws about the U.S. financial markets, securities markets. We don't need to get two in the weeds there.

This is where the SEC was formed. There wasn't an SEC previous to this, right? Yeah. Yes. So essentially, the way that it initially worked was like everyone had to go through this 19B4 process, which is essentially what we're doing right now at these spot applications. And what that means is it's exchanges that apply to the SEC for a proposal for a rule change. And at the end of the day, the rule change is to be able to list a spot Bitcoin ETF. Right. And those are specifically for ETFs that are under the 1933 Act. In 2019, they made this rule called an ETF rule for anything that's under the 1940 Act.

1940, I think things that hold securities that are diversified. There's more requirements on those types of products. They made the rule because before this, everyone had to file a 19 before to launch an ETF, right, if it was remotely new. Now, under the 40 Act, it's just a more simple process. You apply, and you have after 75 days the prospectus or the application to launch a fund goes live and you can start trading it. before those, if those, in those 75 days, the SEC can say, no, no good, you can't launch and then it's bounced. But it's not the same process of the 19B4 process. Futures ETFs, the first one that came out were launched under that process because the SEC didn't have to,

trading a markets didn't have to okay anything that happens with those applications because they're 1940s products, because the futures ETFs, they hold treasuries, and you can argue that holding treasuries and futures is a diversified portfolio, and therefore they can fit under the 40 Act, which is the same reason that all these futures ETFs, they actually all got denied in June because they applied and the SEC within a week was like, no, take them back. The 19B4 process is the process that we're going to spend most of the time talking about, which is what spot Bitcoin ETFs have to go through. And that process, like I said, is for the proposal of a rule change. Can you define that term spot Bitcoin ETF? What's the significance of saying spot Bitcoin versus just Bitcoin ETF? Yeah. So we have Bitcoin futures ETFs, which like a futures

ETF typically the way it works is most of them hold like the front month futures contract. So a futures contract basically means you enter an agreement to either buy or sell Bitcoin at the end of a month on a given date. And you can trade that right to do that or the ability to do that via futures contracts. But the problem with that is that like I said, it's every month. So right now if you're holding a front month futures contract for Bitcoin, you're going to have to sell it towards the end of July and then buy the August contract, right? And typically the way these markets work, they work in like where they're in contango. So the July contract is maybe priced here and then the August contract might be priced just a little bit above. Sometimes they can

get steeper or not, but that means you're selling low and buying high and it eats away at your return. So this is constant churning of holding things, of holding these futures can be bad detrimental long-term returns. That said, these Bitcoin futures ETFs that have been in the market have done very well. Historically, they, if they had launched a few years ago, they would have vastly underperformed the spot market or physical market, as you can also call. it, but it's really just the futures market versus the spot market. And the holy grail here would be to have a physically backed spot Bitcoin ETF, meaning the Bitcoin is stored in cold storage somewhere and you have the shares of the ETF are a right to the underlying asset, in this case,

Spot Bitcoin. Whereas in the futures ETS that the SEC has approved, you have a right to those futures contracts. So we want Spot Bitcoin because it's just a much better user experience, right i i can't imagine if i was purchasing sort of a bitcoin etf in my fidelity account as a retail user and i'm trying to deal with like selling at the end of the month to buy the kind of the next month and just what terrible user experience compare yeah so for the etf you don't have the etf does that for you so it does that for you so you can just hold it so the but that rolling is the problem right and it's not actually holding spot bitcoin it's it's paper exposure it's derivative exposure okay um so a lot of people prefer not to handle that so we talked about oil ets before sometimes the

things can go into massive contango where like the next contract is super expensive or backwardation, which is where the current contract is more expensive than the next one. So I don't know if some of you guys probably remember when oil went negative in 2020, that caused a lot of problem for these oil ETFs. But because like I said, they all hold futures to get their exposure. So if I'm recalling correctly, and you might remember the full history. So correct me if I'm wrong here, James. But I think when Gensler took over, that was when maybe the Bitcoin futures ETF, was approved somewhere around there or am i wrong with that yeah so he was already in charge um he took over after the ripple lawsuit had been filed but so that's what most people associate with him uh and after

coinbase went um was like approved to go public okay he is the reason that we have futures ETS he gave a speech in late july gensler was 2021 and this is not verbatim but he essentially said they had denied all futures ETS up still his point and at the end of the speech he was told me a little bit of crypto and he said, we look forward to applications for Bitcoin futures ETFs filed under the 1940 Act. That one line in like a relatively longish speech and then like everyone filed for a futures Bitcoin ETF. And sure enough, we got one approved in November. We also have an eth one too, right? An ether one? No, we don't have any ETFs. Yeah, so they've applied, but they haven't been approved. So the SEC will not approve Ethereum futures ETFs.

largely we genzler the one thing will he he will admit is a security is not a security is bitcoin and he won't say the same now for a theory which has been covered extensively so I don't think he's going to allow those things anytime soon but but because of that statement and because of us talking with the people is why in

September or October of 2021 why we were so bullish on the fact that we were going to get a launch and we actually were very different from a lot of our counterparts at the trad five space saying that this launch was going to happen. And most people are just banking on history and what the SEC has typically done

and saying no shot that this thing gets approved. And that's where we made a name for ourselves, I guess, honestly, on that front. So why is Gensler in favor of kind of the futures Bitcoin ETF style and not the spot Bitcoin ETF? So I can tell you his argument. What's the difference? Yeah, his argument is that they're CME futures.

So they are covered by the CFP. You see, it's a regulated market. There is not going to be any manipulation of those futures contracts. That's what they would say. But the real fact of the matter is the pricing of the futures markets are dictated by something called the Bitcoin reference rate. And the Bitcoin reference rate is based off of a bunch of spot markets, including Coinbase Crackin and a few other, Gemini, some other. So it's literally the price of those futures contracts is determined by an aggregate of the spot market value of Bitcoin. Okay.

Well, Gary's a smart guy. I mean, he surely knows what you just said, right? So that's what he said. What do you think the real reason is? Do you care to speculate? I don't know why he. I think the problem is they couldn't deny. They realized they were going to run into issues with the fact that the CFTC had approved these things and let them list. They are not making an argument that Bitcoin is security and basically saying that you can't launch these ETFs. First of all, the, like I said, it goes under a different process. So it didn't go through division of trading and markets. So these things kind of got a little bit of a green. in light because they didn't have to go through the same process the 19B4. So, yeah, Gensler kind of gave that to the crypto community and it's what's biting him now.

So ironically, there were other ETFs that were filed before Gensler made that speech and this 19B4 process takes 240 days. Basically, you file, the SEC can bounce it back to you for changes and then you can refile but essentially it starts a clock and the clock goes 45 days and you have to approve,

delay, deny, 45 days, 90 days, and then at the end of 60 days, after that, you either have to approve or deny. There is no more delaying. And there was an application from a company that is a commodity CTF provider, Tukrium, that had filed before Gensler gave that speech for a 33-act one that goes to this 19B4 process. And I wrote about this six months before it happened, but I said, this is putting the SEC in an absurd place to be, like, they approved these future CETFs under the 40 Act. And now we have 33-act applications that are fundamentally very, there's very little difference between the two of them.

And the SEC is going to have to decide how hard they're going to stay on this 19B4 process in approving them versus not approving them. And what they did is they approved this ETF and the argument they made. So one of the reasons why all ETFs have been denied is because there is no surveillance of an underlying market. And they specifically say they want surveillance sharing agreements or they want a regulated spot market of significant size. And the two keywords, there are a regulated market and significant size. and the way that they got around those, this is where I said they can kind of back into what they want, the way they got around those requirements for the CME futures market,

because if you talk to somebody in crypto, they would tell you there's billions of dollars trading in futures markets in Europe and on these exchanges and what have you, but specifically regulated crypto-regulated futures markets, the SEC basically said that it was a regulated market of significant size with respect to itself. So the CME futures market is a regulated market of significant size because it's market of significant size,

because the entire market they were looking at was nothing but the CME futures market. So, like, they can kind of, like, make, they can kind of back into whatever reasoning. That's what I kind of hinted at before. So that's a good example of, like, what the SEC will do just to make sure they can do things the way that they want to. And that, in that application, they spent pages upon pages explaining why they were going to prove that futures ETF and still not allow spot ETFs. And then a couple months later, we got the gray scale denial, which we also fully expected. and Grayscale has sued, and now that's where we are. Guys, I think we're going to get to the crypto part of this conversation all in

on whether we're going to get a Bitcoin ETF anytime soon. I've got a lot more questions for James. But before we do, I want to thank the sponsors that made this episode possible, including Metamask and their portfolio application. If you haven't looked at your Metamask portfolio, go check out your crypto wallet right now. Download Metamask and load it up. Here they are. MetaMask has something new.

Introducing MetaMask portfolio. MetaMask portfolio is the best way to view your crypto portfolio from a holistic level. See everything across all the chains all at once. In your portfolio, MetaMask will report the aggregate value of all the assets in your MetaMask wallets, and even the other wallets you import too. But MetaMask portfolio isn't just a passive portfolio viewer. It is a place to do all of the money verbs that make Defi so powerful. You can buy, swap, bridge, and stake your crypto assets.

So not only is MetaMask the easiest place to see your wallets in aggregate, but it's also a powerful battle station for all of your Defymefive moves. So go check out your Metamask portfolio because it's waiting for you to open it up. Check it out at portfolio.netmask.io. You know Uniswop. It's the world's largest decentralized exchange, with over $1.4 trillion in trading volume. You know this because we talk about it endlessly on bank lists. It's Uniswop. But Uniswap is becoming so much more.

Uniswap Labs just released the Uniswap mobile wallet for iOS. easiest way to trade tokens on the go. With the Uniswap wallet, you can easily create or import a new wallet, buy crypto on any available exchange with your debit card with extremely low Fiat on-ramp fees, and you can seamlessly swap on main net, polygon, arbitram, and optimism. On the Uniswop mobile wallet, you can store and display your beautiful NFTs, and you can also explore Web3 with the in-app search features, market leaderboards, and price charts, or use Wallet Connect to connect to any Web3 application. So you can now go directly to D5 with the Uniswap mobile wallet, safe, simple custody, from the most trusted team in Defy.

Download the Uniswap wallet today on iOS. There is a link in the show notes. Arbitrum 1 is pioneering the world of secure Ethereum scalability and is continuing to accelerate the Web 3 landscape. Hundreds of projects have already deployed on Arbitrum 1, producing flourishing defy and NFT ecosystems. With a recent addition of Arbitrum Nova, gaming and social daps like Reddit are also now calling Arbitrum home.

Both Arbitrum 1 and Nova leverage the security and decentralization of Ethereum and provide a builder experience that's intuitive, familiar, and fully EVM compatible. On Arbitrum, both builders and users will experience faster transaction speeds with significantly lower gas fees. With Arbitrum's recent migration to Arbitram Nitro, it's also now 10 times faster than before. Visit Arbitrum.com, where you can join the community, dive into the developer docs, bridge your assets, and start building your first app. With Arbitrum, experience Web3 development the way it was meant to be. Secure, fast, cheap, and friction-free. Okay, you mentioned that the SEC can basically back into whatever they want. And it seems like they're having

trouble maybe keeping their story straight with all the different things they've said and actions they've taken. Is there like a real reason that the SEC and Gensler is not just approving a Bitcoin ETF? Okay, surveillance, all of this type of thing. Is it, I mean, crypto will just tell you. I mean, there's definitely a lot of conspiracy theories here. of course. But the simple explanation seems to be Gary Gensler and some political body within the government does not want to propagate crypto any further. And so they're just trying to hold the line for as long as possible and delay things for as long as possible because they don't like crypto. Is it as simple as that, James? Or have you seen anything in your journey here to bring up

kind of an alternative explanation for all of this. I would say that's a huge part of it. But you also like, part of it, the other side of that is one, that sounds very wrong, but at the same time, like, look what's happened with FTX. Look what's happened with Celsius. I mean, those are the ones that seem to be ones that committed really bad acts. Then you have prime trusts also. And then you have the companies that went down with them, whether or not they committed

bad acts and BlockFi and Voyager. I mean, we can name all of them, right? And this kind of gives credence to the SECs. argument as far as I'm concerned, right? There is some definitive reason. Let me ask you this, though, but like if they, to your point earlier, I think you made this point that if we do get an ETF, it'll clean things up, right? I mean, like, the reason that people had to trust an FTX or felt like they did wanted to trust a sales series or something else is because our regulator, our gatekeeper, wouldn't go through the process of approving a regular spot Bitcoin ETF. Do you think

that argument has any merits. Like, I mean, people, crypto don't want to get ripped off either. So how about the regulators create some alternatives rather than just setting up blockers all the time? Do you lend any credibility to that argument? I lend a lot of credibility of that argument. So like I find that when I'm on TradFi type, we'll say podcast, but it's really anything if it's a client call, I find that I talk about that side a lot more than the side I spoke about earlier because they focus on that side. So basically the whole thing is like there's two sides of the coin here. But I agree with everything you said. The problem is that also I would say some of the some of it wasn't people had never bought the ETF because they were chasing Celsius and those other

actors because they were promising like whatever unimaginable returns and people didn't do their research and understand how it was actually working. It feels like the Spider-Ban meme of all the Spider-Men like just pointing at each other and blaming each other here. All right. So something new, it feels like has happened this year. But I want you to tell us if there really is anything new here. Of course, you said there were 77 different applications for Bitcoin ETFs, well, crypto ETFs over the years. But this year, some new participants have thrown their hat in the ring, one of which is Black Rock. It was very interesting earlier this week as well. We had Larry Fink doing kind of the, that's the Black Rock CEO, doing kind of a mainstream media tour and talking

good things about Bitcoin and about crypto in general, which is very interesting because six years earlier, he had called it, I think, the direct quote as an index, Bitcoin is an index for money laundering. So definitely a change. Maybe some education that happened. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe he has a product to sell. I don't know. Believe what you want to about that. But BlackRock entering a $9 trillion asset manager, the largest in the world, is that different. There's also a stat here. where they've done like over 500 different ETF applications, and they only missed once. It's like, so they don't often miss once they file applications. So that feels new.

Is there something new here, or is this more of the same? So one, when we basically Coindex broke the news that they were going to file, and we saw it, and me and Eric and other people on the team were like, whoa, in the industry, we're like, can this be true? Sure enough, a few hours later, we got the filing hit, and we were my eyes were wide open. You were not expecting this. So let me explain what we were expecting. So like one, BlackRock is the only new entrant.

Everybody else has already tried this this year. So the only new entrance to this space to try and launch one of these is BlackRock. Like even Fidelity, they had tried previously. Yes, yes, multiple times actually. So there's been multiple people that everyone else who's doing this has already done it in the past, aside from BlackRock. That said, we always expected BlackRock, no matter at one point they were going to launch a Bitcoin an ETF, particularly after they partnered with Coinbase last year for for different things. They use Coinbase for their institutional clients. They use them for pricing into their Aladdin,

some technology that BlackRock sells, which we don't want to get into. But they've had a partnership with Coinbase. We knew they weren't shying away. But BlackRock is so big. They have so much distribution. They have so much marketing power. We didn't think they were going to waste time just fighting with the SEC to get this thing launched. We figured it would get approved and then BlackRock would file and they would be ready to go. So this, caught us by surprise, not that Black Rock filed at all, but that they were filing to fight with the SEC to get this thing out of the door first. You just thought they'd be a fast follow after somebody else gets it approved.

Then, of course, Black Rock's going to throw their hat in the ring. But, like, why be, you know, macheting your way through the jungle and be kind of a lead here? Yeah, exactly. And honestly, you mentioned that Fink interview. That was, like, way stronger than I expected him. Like, we always, so one thing we also knew, once they filed this, we knew Larry signed it off on this, right? Larry is one of the biggest figures in traditional finance,

and we knew that if BlackRock filed this, they knew they were going to start a race, right? They knew they were going to, if they filed, that everyone else was going to file after them because it's just the way things have worked historically. The key difference here with what BlackRock offered in their filing is they said they were entering into a surveillance agreement with the spot Bitcoin trading provider.

We guessed at the time that it was Coinbase. Subsequently, we learned it was definitively Coinbase after the SEC made them name it before they could fully file. So that's the big difference. They entered into a surveillance sharing agreement. And I mentioned those earlier. That's what the SEC has said when they denied all of these. They want a surveillance sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size.

A lot of people initially said, no way, Coinbase is not a market of significant size. I've written notes that debate the opposite because it is the largest Bitcoin trading pair with U.S. dollars. They are the largest exchange. They are the largest exchange that accepts U.S. dollars as an on-ramp. So in our mind, it is a market of significant size. The biggest market is obviously Binance, but Binance, all that is done on stable coins like Tether and TrueUSD and things that the government really doesn't like as it is anyway.

So I think it is a market of significant size, and then everyone else jumped on board to try and get this. Now, one thing I said that I want to correct is I said BlackRock filed. Technically, these 19B4 filings are filings from the exchanges that they're partnered with. So in this case, it was NASDAQ that filed this in partnership with BlackRock, but it's a NASDAQ application. And then we have other, NICC, New York Stock Exchange and CBOE has partnered with other issuers to also file them. Well, that seems to lend a bit more credibility to, I don't know how this works, but when you say NASDAQ plus BlackRock is filing rather than just, you know, BlackRock, that's very interesting or NASDAQ on their behalf. But is this also with kind of the comments this week from Larry Fink, is this also?

a signal from Black Rock? Are they trying to broadcast something? Are they trying to say, hold on U.S. regulators. You've gone a little bit too far. We actually want to lean into this asset class. And if you're not going to let us do it in the U.S., then we're going to fall behind all of the other jurisdictions. Is this kind of a coordinated pushback?

Is there a signal? Or should I not read that into the messages that are going on here? So I would say that's putting your, tinfoil a hat on a little bit. That might be the case, honestly. We also thought that it's because of BlackRock. Let's be clear. BlackRock is the gorilla in the room, right? BlackRock is 31, 33% of US ETF assets. Vanguard is 28% and then everybody else is nowhere close, right? So it's BlackRock and Vanguard is never, will never file for a Bitcoin ETF if I had to guess, maybe very far down the line, but why they're just, they're more conservative. It's not, they don't even have a gold ETF. It's not something

they believe in. It's not something they do. They're low cost. index, equity, and bond, that's what they do, right? Like, that's what they specialize in. They don't even have a gold ETF. Jack Boldel didn't believe, John Bogle didn't believe in investing in gold to be, and he hated crypto of Bitcoin, but he's not there anymore. They've changed a lot of things that he didn't like. He also didn't like ETFs.

Oh, really? He thought they promoted too, he thought they promoted too much trading. He much preferred the old mutual fund index fund cheap. Yeah. The Hottle OG for stocks. Yeah, he was a, yeah, exactly. Eric Boutunus, my boss has written note basically says like defy people can learn a thing from like jack bogle it's all patience

crypto natives you learn that yeah uh i forgot where i was going with that well let me just ask you so black rock filing is that just slam dunk like it's going to happen now or is that that not the case because i was giving you like that track record which you you know i think maybe i probably read it from a tweet that you put out which is yeah it was they've only missed once out of 500 yeah it's five we've said 575. I think the technical number is 546. Upon like super close inspection that we could find, but we could be missing some.

But either way, it's over 500. They've only lost one. And that one that they lost, it was for something called a non-transparent active ETF, or we call them ANTS, active non-transparent. And it's just a structure that doesn't have the same, like most ETS are fully transparent. So you can see what's in the ETF every single day.

When it's trading, you know exactly how much of each stock or bond or whatever. And this is like where it's kind of hidden a little bit so people can't front run you. and that was in 2014, and they approved these things in 2018, I think, 2019, something like that. But it ultimately did get approved. They were just early. So that's a good sign. The other point is, like, if you look at Biddo, which is the first futures Bitcoin ETF in the U.S.,

that thing got $1.5 billion in two days. That has 96% of the Bitcoin futures ETF assets and 99. I don't know what the numbers are, but it's like over, it's in the 90s percent of assets. Is the one billion? One billion in two days? Is that good? One in a, it's, that was the best launch ever. If it's, so the previous record was GLD, the gold ETF in 2004, which hit over a billion

in three days, which let's be clear, a billion dollars in 2004 is worth a lot more. It's a billion dollars in 2021. But it did, that's the way we, we kind of have to look at it. Okay. Yeah. But even still Biddle would have beat it because they went to one point five after two days. So it wasn't like they just cracked the one billion dollar mark. So, and but the problem is like there are.

first move of advantage, right? So if BlackRock thinks they could possibly be first and get that type of exposure and charge relatively high fees compared to what they're used to charging, um, the odds don't have to be very high for them to take that swing, right? Like if the, if the benefit was not that high, maybe they wouldn't have taken this risk, but I think the, this is me playing devil's advocate a bit. Like they, they don't have to, like, even if they think the odds are 10% or 20%, they could be out first, like the benefit of getting what they think maybe two billion dollars in a week or,

$10 billion in a year and charging 50, 60, 70 basis points on that is very strong, even for BlackRock, despite the amount of assets they have. That's a lot of margin that they can get. So like the benefit of being first and doing that is pretty strong. So and the downsides are, yeah, so what, they have another loss on their record and they piss off some people at the SEC. Like there's very little downside in my eyes. But that said, BlackRock is not in the game of filing things willy-nilly just throwing spaghetti at the wall, right? This is not a company that's going to do that. This is not a company that's just going to jump into this without doing their due diligence. And they also have very close ties with the government. They've done some of the, they've helped

the government do like different exchanges. The Fed do different things with buying programs. So there's a lot of, I don't want to say, it's not a revolving door, but it kind of is. There's a lot of people that are at Black Rock who are at the SEC and vice versa. So I mean, this is what we've surmised. There has to be some political pressure building on the SEC to kind of do something. And this is why I'm just like totally speculating, but it feels like it's it's never been closer, even though the SEC is as, you know, in 2020, especially, been very anti-crypto. I mean, this feels pretty big.

But you do think still, James, there is a possibility. There's always a possibility. But like, it's not a remote possibility that Gary and the SEC could still deny BlackRock. that's still on the menu, right? Yeah, let's be, I'll be very blunt. If you look at all the things that they have said and written over the last three years, this will be denied. Really? But there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests that it will be approved.

It goes back to what I said. They can back into whatever decision they want to. Okay. So all it takes them. You said two things there, James. I want to be clear. So you think that if you look at the history over the last three years and what they've kind of, you know, said, then it looks like it's a denial.

Yet, when you look at the circumstantial evidence, you think that it's maybe pointing to an approval. Yep, exactly. So, like, BlackRock jumping in, we think Grayscale is going to win their lawsuits. So Grayscale's lawsuit is hinging. It's called an Administrative Procedures Act. If you were in the U.S.,

and you heard about some overturning of the EPA saying they overreach their bounds and stuff that the Supreme Court has done, the Administrative Procedures Act basically says, like, you overstepped your power or you didn't treat like situations alike, and that's what this one is. And Gray's Gills' whole basis is like,

you can't approve futures ETFs and then not approve spot ETFs because the futures market and the spot market are completely intertwined, which is an argument that everyone has been making since the futures ETS were approved. But the SEC has basically said, there's still no way to detect fraud and manipulation in the underlying spot market,

which, again, is a kind of an overreach from anything they've done for other commodity ETFs. Like if that was the case, then we shouldn't have oil ETFs because OPEC is completely manipulating that market, right? So you can push arguments and push buttons in any different way that you want. But yeah, so there's a lot of circumstantial things, but we think the SEC is going to lose that lawsuit to Grayscale. And what that means is the judges will almost certainly say, look, you can't deny for the reasons you gave.

Go back to the drawing board. And either the SEC is going to have to approve Grayscale's application that they're suing over, which is to convert GBT to an ETF, or they're going to have to deny for other or those same. reasons and additional reasons on top of it that make it so that the situations are not like for like so there's pressure building from multiple angles here not only do you have like you know larry think and you black rock in the kind of the 77 previous application of crypto ets you also have this gray scale lawsuit and what's the timeline around the gray scale lawsuit like is there any like when would the court have to make a decision by yeah so the the decision need to be done and we It doesn't have to be done.

So the courts kind of like roll through things, right? But our litigation analyst, Elliot Stein, who I work with, expected it by the end of, before the end of the third quarter. So that's before the end of September. So in the next couple months here, we're expecting a decision. Wow, really? But the one thing I would say, to caveat everything we just said, the circumstantial evidence is there's hard evidence that the SEC is suing Coinbase. And they're the people that are going to be the custodian for this BlackRock ETF. They are going to be the surveillance sharing.

agreement partner and but they're suing coinbase over other things not bitcoin exactly that's the key point here right the cc is it's the little bitcoin is one thing that gary will admit as a commodity it's not a security he's suing coinbase and finance finance finance finance finance for every different things they're accusing finance of fraud manipular practices wash trading spoof trading spoofing all the things you can you name it they're accusing finance of they're not accusing coinbase of that they're saying they're basically an unregistered securities broker um because they're trading securities on their platform. But their focus on different securities.

So in my mind, if Gary and the SEC are going to back down anywhere and give like bend a little bit on this front, it'll be on the Bitcoin. So that's nowhere else. That's what it's felt like to me. But of course, you know better. But so are you over under on a spot Bitcoin ETF by the end of 2023? So this goes back. So now we get to get into the detail.

That's something we didn't talk about. Okay. When BlackRock filed, there was, so I talked about that 19 before a process, right? So you submit the application. The exchange sends it to the SEC, and the SEC has some time period before they have to accept it and acknowledge it, or they send it back. And they basically say, you didn't do this. With BlackRock, that's what they did with all the CBOE filings, Vanac, BitWise at NIC, you name it, Invesco and Galaxy, Wisdom Tree. They sent them all back and said, you can't submit this with the surveillance sharing agreement without telling us who it is and giving us more information. recently. Wasn't this? This was a Wall Street Journal article. Okay. Which was not surprising. The SEC was never going to approve these things because these filing said they were going to enter into an SSA, right? So it wasn't surprising that they shot them back. But the key difference here is that 21 shares, which is an ETF issuer in Europe. They own, they have the most crypto ETFs launched in Europe based in Switzerland. But they partner with ARC,

which is a big ETF issue here in the U.S. to launch an ETF. They were denied recently. This is Arch. This is Kathy Woods, Arc. She's partnered with Kathy Wood. So Kathy Wood has been on the board for 21 shares. We actually just did a podcast yesterday, two days ago, with the president of 21 shares, if anyone's interested. So she gave us some insight into what they're seeing on their end. But that's on the Trillions podcast. Sorry to promote something. No, no, we'll include it as a link in the show notes. So Trillions podcast. Okay. Yeah, that's Belchunis's podcast. So they filed. So they were denied. Them and Van Eck were denied. And then the SEC, I told you, issued those to send letters. But after they were denied, Arc and 21 shares got right back on the horse and applied again.

I'm pretty sure it was, so they basically applied not too long after we heard the oral arguments in the Grayscale case. And that's when we got, we were like, after hearing the judge's conversation with the Grayscale lawyers and the SEC lawyers, we were confident that Grayscale had a legitimate shot to win the case. not guaranteed. Obviously, my litigation analyst put it at like a 70% odds of Grayscoe winning, and we talk about what that means really, but they filed. So I think they filed because of that, right? And they wanted to have an application outstanding with the SEC. So they've submitted that on April 25th. And then the SEC acknowledged it on May 9th. So the only application that's active in that 19B4 process where I talk about that 45-day, 45-day, 90-60-day process,

the only ETF that was active, or the application that was active was ARC21 shares and partnership with CBOE. So then BlackRock dropped this application on June 15th. CBOE and a bunch of issuers in Nicium Bitwise filed suit and they were bounced back by the SEC. And then the first one we saw was ARC 21 shares submitted an amendment. So basically their clock has already started. So we have a date, we have dates on when we know the SEC needs to issue a response, delay, deny, approve for ARC 21 shares. All the other ones were sent back and bounced back to the issuers in the exchanges and they had to refile. The SEC hasn't acknowledged those, and basically acknowledge means they post it to the Federal Register, but like it's essentially, the SEC says we got these and they post them to their

website, and then we get dates of when these things are going to happen. But the only ETF that we know exactly what those dates are right now is ARC 21 shares. And the next, the fun, the interesting thing is the SEC on June 15th came out and issued ARC and 21 shares a delay. But the deadline was until June 29th. So they were, the SEC was required to respond with a delay deny approved by June 29th and they delayed on June 15th the day that BlackRock and Nasdaq filed their application. The next date is August 13th. Now again, the SEC, that's a deadline that can go before that. But at the end of that 240 day time period is January 10th of 2024. So we will have an answer by January 10th, 2024 at the very least. No way. And okay, so this would be basically

like the 21 shares, the arc one that you mentioned, that's kind of the leader, right? That's the first one. And like the way it would be very difficult for the SEC to deny this one and then like approve some of the others in Q, right? So is that why you're thinking that this January 10th, 2024 date is kind of the last and final, cannot be delayed any longer date on which this entire crop of ETFs in this season, in this cycle, given this political climate, will either be approved or denied. Yeah. So let's be very clear. The Alcary has also followed with NASDAQ. So they also, NASDAQ is the one. they're further along in their agreement on Coinbase. We don't know exactly where it is, but there's different language.

So in the first filings, we saw expecting to enter into a surveillance sharing agreement, right? Expecting. So the CBOE still said that in their amendments, and they named Coinbase. But the BlackRock ones said they executed a term sheet to enter in a surveillance agreement. So there's like, I don't know exactly what all these mean from the legal perspective. CBOE says their term sheet is already ready to go to. But essentially BlackRock and NASDAQ, well, specifically NASDAQ is further along than CBOE. BEOE and NICEC.

Right? So they have gotten further along in the process. So if for some reason, which I can't, I don't think this is going to happen that like CBOE can enter into an SSA with with Coinbase, that's the one thing that differentiates BlackRock and NASDAX application, then maybe they could deny ARC 21 shares and approved BlackRock, but that would be shocked. That would be absolutely shocking to me. But also what the SEC could do is they could approve, like I said, there's all those

deadlines, but the SAC can make a decision whenever they want, right? They just have to have a decision before those days. deadlines, for example, they went 14 days on ARC and delayed it. Initially, I thought that the first deadlines, so August 13th, with the surveillance sharing agreement information, if they delay there, then it's probably just going to get denied. The more I look at it, the more I talk to people, this is going to require a long conversation. This whole process is going to be a back and forth between these issuers, the exchanges, and the SEC. So I would say now that if they do delay at the first instance of the BlackRock and all these

other applications and ARC 21 shares in August, I expect BlackRock's. deadline to be, I'll tell you right now, I'm estimating because it depends when, like I said, the SEC doesn't always acknowledge them on the same time frame, but it'd be like the first week of September that we would get a delay, deny, approve on the Black Rock and other ones. Got it. So this is all kind of coming to a head over the next few months. And this also matches the January 10th might be a date, at least for the 21 shares, Arc 1, 2024. But this also is interesting timing with the gray scale case, which you said a decision could be made. You don't know when, but September is a possibility here.

So all of these dates are kind of narrowing in. By the way, just a quick side quest on the gray scale thing, GBTC. That was a, I think a cause or folks in crypto have said that not having an ETF and being reliant on GBDC caused a whole cascade of shitty. things to happen in 2024, right? We had three hours capital insolvency, which let this. Yeah, I have strong views here. Give me your strong views, okay? Because yeah, so there's a crypto narrative around something that, you know, like people want to blame the GPDC and the SEC not approving an ETF. And others will say, well, that had nothing to do with it. What's your take,

James? It did have something to do with it. A lot of these applications have said, including gray scale in their applications to prove. It's like this product is broken retail and the SEC's goal is to protect investors, right? And this product is broken. A lot of retail investors got hurt or have been hurt by the huge discount. And one of the arguments has historically been, look at what we have in the market now. There's already things out there. People are using micro strategy to get exposure like an ETF is a proven wrapper that we know will work. That's so crazy to me, by the way, that we have to use micro strategy and Michael Saylor as a proxy to getting Bitcoin exposure in a public that's crazy.

Yes, but the SEC has come back and said they don't take that into consideration in their trading as a market's way that they're looking at things, right? They just basically said they don't care about that. That's not something they're worried about. They acknowledge the situation. The flip side of this,

which I do agree with all this thing said, is we might not have found out the shit that 3AC and FTX were doing without this entire blow up. Could have gone on longer. Exactly. If the SEC had approved these things, we might not have caught all this fraud.

blatant fraud that happened or I guess I shouldn't say blatant because it hasn't been proven yet but it's likely to be proven. It seemed pretty blatant in the FTF's case. FTC's case but I mean you look at 3AC which arguably triggered like what's something like they were also triggered by the Luna stuff so it's all kind of

related Genesis is having issues because of this. BlockFi was heavily invested in the GBT stuff it doesn't look like block fried necessarily committed fraud but like you're saying you're like well the ETF not a the ETF is to blame here, but like, consider yourself blessed crypto market. This needed to happen. This is a cancer that needed to be cut up, cut out at this point in time. It would have just

consumed the entire body if we had another like three to five years for this malignant tumor to kind of grow. And it would have been far worse. Continuing leveraging and doing things. Can you imagine? Yeah. So I tweeted this to the day. I made the argument that like, you know, like this might have been like one of the, the best things the SEC could have done for the long-term health of the crypto and Bitcoin market specifically. Because they didn't allow people to get out of it. Basically, it comes down to the fact that people couldn't access the underlying value

of the Bitcoin in GBTC, which you can do in ETF. So because they couldn't access the underlying value of Bitcoin, they couldn't, like, cover up all the other shit they were doing. I didn't expect to come near to the end of this episode and say, thanks, Gary. But maybe that's part of the conclusion here. Just a couple other points before we depart on this issue. So one is that Bitcoin ETFs spot Bitcoin ETFs are already outside of the U.S. This is already happening in other jurisdictions.

Is that correct? Yes, there are Canadian spot Bitcoin ETFs as of 2021, 2022, early 20, I don't even remember, 2021, 2022. I don't remember the exact date. Even long before that they were available in Europe. They're not technically ETFs in Europe. They're what's called ETCs, but functionally, they're ETFs. Physically backed Bitcoin ETFs.

And they have plenty of other crypto ETFs. They have some stuff. I mean, they had an FTX ETF in Europe. So they'd be in B&B ETF in Europe. They have a lot of things in the U.S. It's very far away from ever getting to. So do with that information. Well, yeah.

And the other thing is I want to say is like they've been around. They were around for all this crazy stuff that happened. And they handled everything perfectly. there was no issues no new issues with accessing the underlying asset there was no issues with bitcoin just not being in the in the on the wallets that you expected it to be and it traded very smoothly it traded very tight it was about as efficient or as good as you could hope that it would be and it should be used as an example of what we can do here in the u.s and i know for a fact what the SEC will say because they've said in the past is we're the oldest most trusted financial markets

So we're going to have more requirements and blah, blah. But if you look to other markets, these things have handled. Even Brazil, Brazil has about Bitcoin ETS from hashtags, which I mentioned Tukrium before, but Hashtex is a crypto ETF provider that basically partnered with Tukrium to take over their application. Because Tukram is like, we're not first. Like it doesn't matter to us anymore, but hashtags is a provider that wanted access to the U.S. market, and they partnered with them to launch it. So hashtags, which is Tickr DeFi, we have, and something we haven't touched on yet,

is the only 33-Act Bitcoin Futures UTF. 33 Act futures, 33 Act ETFs are the only ones that can hold spot Bitcoin. So theoretically, if we do get an approval here, that could be the first ETF on U.S. Exchange that holds spot Bitcoin. They would just have to change the prospectus and file an amendment with the SEC and get accepted. But theoretically, they could be one of the first ones holding spot Bitcoin. That's interesting. Okay. So Ethereum as an ETF. Is that happening anytime soon?

No. Unfortunately not. Why not? because there is Ethereum futures ETFs, and I thought they were going to come quickly after the Bitcoin futures ETFs. But Gensler and his SEC bounced that back immediately right after in early 2020.

I gave it a year and I said we'd have futures ETS within a year of the Bitcoin futures ETS, and I got that blatantly wrong. And basically it's because the SEC is like arguing now that ETHIS security, they won't say. You probably base that on the Hinnman speech, right? like kind of the SEC. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

It's based on the Hinman speech. I thought for sure it was going to the fact that we had futures, the volume on the futures and the CME were strong. And the fact that it follows the same, it would follow the same path that Bitcoin did. But Gary has held the line and almost regressed on the SEC's posture towards. 100% has regressed. Yeah, I totally agree with that.

So not happening any time in the U.S. But is... Well, actually, let me give you one caveat. It's not happening unless Congress steps in. I'll give you multiple caveats. Unless Congress steps in gives some regulatory oversight and clarity. Please Congress. Yeah, but I won't hold my breath for that to happen.

The other thing is it's not going to happen with Gary at the helm. So if a Republican wins in the presidential election, Gary will likely not be at the helm of the SEC, and then you'll have somebody in the Republican. So theoretically, Republicans have been more pro-Eth crypto Bitcoin on that side of thing. So you could get one that way, but it still seems very unlikely because you would have to undo some precedent that the SEC has already sent and set in different ways.

But like I said, Ethereum Futures, we had Ethereum Futures. Let me one second. They'll tell you exactly when. We had Ethereum Futures ETS apply in June. No, in May. Of this year? Yeah, we had, so basically what happened there was Grayskill applied on May 9th

for three ETS, and they would go under that 75 ticking clock time period. One of them was a futures ETF. And then four issuers followed suit immediately the next day. applied for any Ethereum futures ETS and those were denied. One of the ETS that's likely going to launch on, it'll be approved, I'll tell you exact date, July 23rd, this is also kind of comical because it looks like this is going to have to let it go through because it satisfies all the rules they have. But what it'll do, it's going to hold a slew of international spot Bitcoin ETFs,

the likes of Canada and Europe for like 40% of the fund, and the other 60% is going to hold Bitcoin miners. That's such a silly. So basically, forgive me, that's a silly product I feel like, but okay. I don't know if the, I don't know if, so with one thing is that the grace, it's called the gray scale global Bitcoin composite ETF, but they're using ticker BTC. And there's some wonky stuff here, but I think they need the file have an active application because their hold on the ticker BTC might have gone. So I don't know if they actually plan to launch this. But if they do, it would be completely,

It just shows the ridiculousness of like the SEC's current stance. And even if you talk to anyone in this, for the most part, they agree that a improving future is a dying spot. It doesn't make a lot of sense, even people who are vehemently anti-crypto. So those people tend to advocate for the position that the SEC is going to have to basically reverse the decision in approving futures ETFs for Bitcoin in order to get out of this. Can they do that? They can't reverse. They have done it in some instances in the past. but it would probably open them up to more lawsuits.

Wow, this is very fascinating. Of course, this, you know, it comes into play when you have a gatekeeper over kind of your tokenization types of events of which Gary Gensler and the SEC is. James, as we get to kind of the end of this episode, then the concluding question to me is some people will have been listening to this,

being fascinated by this exploration of ETFs and how this works and all the people involved in the companies, all of these things. and then they'll ask the question of like, well, why do I care? Like, I can just go buy Bitcoin or Eith or any asset that I want on Coinbase. This isn't a very bankless product, is it? An ETF product is by definition custodied by someone, so is by definition banked. Can you tell us the prize here?

Like, what markets does a Bitcoin ETF actually open up? Like, why is this good for maybe for people who are very price conscious? Bitcoin price or for Bitcoin being, price exposure being in the hands of more people. Why is even having a Bitcoin ETF a good thing? How does it affect the market? How does it affect price from your perspective? I mean, the dumbest answer is that it's just another way, another market and way that people could buy. But the really way I look at it is it's going to act like a bridge, right? There are going to be some people that go in this way and might go over to the bankless side of things, right? Like, that's not, that's how a lot of people have acted. I know for a fact some people have gone.

through the gray scale option and then have figured out ways to do it differently. The other side of it is it just opens a whole bunch of people. There's a lot of endowment, pension funds, institutions that have mandates on what they can and cannot invest in. And a lot of them say they can only invest in securities

or they can only invest in securities and debt instruments. So they are literally against, it would be against their mandate against like everything they were founded on to hold Bitcoin directly. So when you have an ETF, all of a sudden, an ETF is a security.

So you're, you're wrapping it and you're able to hold it in that instance. So that just opens up for a lot of different people to hold this and use it or trade it, if you will. The other side of it is in the U.S., I hinted that. I said this before. There's $30 trillion with advisors, right? And advisors love ETS, specifically independent advisors, but because it's the most tried and true

trusted practice, right? So if there are products out there like on ramp and other things, they're trying to work with advisors to custody the assets for their clients. If you had an advisor, typically the way they make money now, it used to be like you get paid commission kickbacks for selling those mutual funds. Now it's a more fiduciary standard and you get paid, say, or if I was your advisor, I get paid like the average is like 1% of your assets every year. And so what's happened in many instances is clients of them, of these advisors. One, they had no way to get access to the crypto markets or Bitcoin. So their clients were doing it on their own and they don't know what they're doing. So they don't know what their risk exposures are. they don't know, like, they wouldn't, the advisor won just from like a, this is a pro love, this is a positive way to look at it. Like the advisor doesn't know that the client is risking all this money in this market that they can control. The other part of it is selfish is that it's not under their umbrella where they can charge the 1% fee. So they would much rather bring that under the 1% under the umbrella where they can charge for it.

The other part is like I mentioned this on-ramp allows you to kind of do it directly. There's other competitors that are trying to allow advisors to store in cold stores while. or what have you. But for most of these advisors, they're not going to be putting significant client assets in these things, right? They're going to give them one, five percent exposure to something like this. They probably would honestly prefer like a crypto index ETF to put like a couple percentage exposure. And if you're going to be doing that, you don't want to be setting up like tons of different contracts with different providers and custodians. Like it's just so much easier to be like, I can just hit click and buy for these clients, and then I have it under my

traditional financial. It basically takes Bitcoin and puts them the traditional financial rail. So this is what GBC did, GBT did, but in a less efficient manner. We talked about all the issues with that, but this would be the holy grail of doing that as far as I'm concerned. I've actually talked with the CEO of OTC markets, which is where GBC trades, a lot of these pink sheets think penny stocks, but they have a market. And he thinks another area is these things will trade as basically depository receipts. I think that might happen as well, but I think just an ETF is a tried and true,

tried and true technology wrapper, an easy way to do this. We know it will work. We know it's clean. We know it's efficient. And people would love if they want exposure, that's how they'll get it. Fantastic summary, James.

I appreciate all your help on this. I think that the bottom line for bankless listeners for those crypto investors on their journey is this could be a bull catalyst, of course, the exposure of potentially tens of trillions of dollars into crypto, the opportunity to purchase an ETF could affect price in some way if the demand is there. I'll give you one counteracting point. Go.

That we had CME futures launched at the end of 2017 and early 2018. And the Bitcoin futures ETFs launched at the end of October in 2021. So if you've been in the crypto market in 2017, you're saying? Yeah. James, you can't kill what's already dead, man. Like crypto's down bad, you know? Exactly. It's a very different market cycle right now.

But who knows where we'll be in January? Yeah, that's a great point. James, this has been incredibly helpful. Some action items for the bankless nation. I think the first action item is you should go follow James on Twitter if you want updates on the Bitcoin ETF. James, what's your Twitter handle? J-S-E-Y-F-F.

There you go. We'll include a link in the show notes. James, I just want to thank you for coming on bank lists. It's been a lot of fun today. Yeah, thanks for having me, Ryan. Also, another action item in the show notes. The 21 shares podcast that James mentioned will include a link to that. Got to end with this.

Risks and disclaimers. Crypto is risky. Price goes up and down. We don't know when we're getting an ETF. All of crypto is risky. You could lose what you put in, but we're headed west. This is the frontier. It's not for everyone, but we're glad you're with us on the bankless journey. Thanks a lot.