English
Menu
Matchups

OddsShark Top Sportsbooks

Fresh Deadline For Bitcoin ETFs Looms Large

A new deadline for a decision regarding bitcoin exchange traded funds has been set for the end of March, in what looks set to be yet another red-letter day for bitcoin investors.

The announcement follows the recent Securities and Exchange Commission deadline set for last Friday, which held that the proposed Winklevoss bitcoin ETF was not eligible for regulatory approval.

That decision sent bitcoin pricing into a tailspin, with $300 wiped off the value of each bitcoin in a matter of minutes. While the value recovered in minutes, the announcement was no doubt a setback for the development of bitcoin as a transparent, major international currency.

Now, with the SEC set to rule over plans for a new bitcoin-based ETF, the question looks set to be analyzed from a different angle.

The SEC will be ruling on the proposed ETF from New York startup SolidX, with the deadline for a decision set for March 30.

The deadline is a revised decision date, after the application was initially due to be ruled on by the end of September 2016. At the time, the SEC preferred to defer the decision until later down the line, saying:

"The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change."

The earlier ruling on the Winklevoss ETF was also deferred from its original hearing date, and analysts have been quick to point out that this shouldn’t be read as an endorsement, or as a negative sign for the fund’s prospects of approval.

SolidX is looking to sell up to $1 million worth of shares in their ETF but requires formal approval from the SEC in order to get the fund off the ground.

While there is no indication whether the fund will be approved at this stage, it remains open for public consultation until the end of this week.

Analysts and bitcoin investors alike will be nervy as the deadline approaches, particularly given the volatility caused by the earlier ruling.

Comments