Why the SEC doesn’t like Bitcoin

And why we shouldn’t care in the slightest

There’s a stronger beast in the jungle…

ETF’s suck — especially for gold and bitcoins.

It’s important to understand the structure and attributes of ETF ownership and what that represents to investors — do your own digging. They only confer advantages to investors within the rules and structure of the current system where no better alternatives are possible, but we don’t need a plugin to access world markets through the regulatory membrane — we need to remove that barrier because Bitcoin supersedes the requirement to have a conventional regulator or sit inside the capital markets as they exist today.

Ownership dilemma

First, most and always is the rule that “if you can’t hold it — you don’t own it” and ETFs epitomise the distinction between actual ownership and perceived ownership. If you have the only private key to a bitcoin wallet containing bitcoins, or a gold coin in your pocket you can be said to be the owner of those marvellous items without any requirement for trust or a third party relationship. If you have units of a centralised, government endorsed fund with “Gold” or “Bitcoin” on the top — you certainly cannot be said to own either.

Putting the cart before the horse.

We need to step back and refresh our perspective from time to time. Why now, in 2017 is a seemingly unpopular/misunderstood, technically opaque protocol with no government assistance or endorsement (and in fact, an unsuccessful MSM FUD campaign, passive aggression and disdain), that was born inconspicuously in a rather niche cryptography forum, now trading on self-built infrastructure in a $1000-$1300 trading range with record transaction volume AFTER a US regulatory body has turned down a major proposal for an attempt at assimilation into broader areas of current investment liquidity? Answer: it’s because the features that give this coin its value are independent of that unfriendly environment. Bitcoins flourish in spite of these hostile conditions and technical barriers. Bitcoin is resistant to conventional methods of control or coercion by design. Better technology wills out.

How will all this go down?

We’re now observing established entities (governments, central banks, and large commercial banks) that represent apex predators in the economic jungle, making those initial interactions with a vastly superior animal. Their entire past experience has been one in which anything new, born in their territory can be tamed and put to use with coercion, force, or the threat of force. That animal is assimilated into their structure and made to serve and strengthen the current alpha.

Conclusion

These issues are what makes the ETF idea so absurd on multiple fronts. Bitcoin is not another commodity that will fall under the current regulatory framework and will work well under its rules and regulations. It has the ability to transform the way we interact with each other. It supersedes taxation, government coercion and law. Leaving that glaring semantic mis-categorisation aside — ETF’s as a product take a $1000+ bitcoin and leave you with something with almost no real utility. I for one am unconcerned with the SEC’s decision as both unimportant and irrelevant, and it seems the price agrees with me…

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store