{"id":204642,"date":"2021-11-15T11:01:24","date_gmt":"2021-11-15T11:01:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptoslate.com\/?p=204642"},"modified":"2023-06-30T22:34:31","modified_gmt":"2023-06-30T21:34:31","slug":"heres-why-the-sec-rejected-the-much-anticipated-vaneck-bitcoin-spot-etf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptoslate.com\/heres-why-the-sec-rejected-the-much-anticipated-vaneck-bitcoin-spot-etf\/","title":{"rendered":"Here’s why the SEC rejected the much anticipated VanEck Bitcoin spot ETF"},"content":{"rendered":"

On November 12th, the United States\u2019 Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has again rejected<\/a> VanEck's Bitcoin spot ETF application citing a number of reasons including the need to protect investors from the volatile nature of the flagship digital asset.<\/p>\n

SEC rejects VanEck again<\/h2>\n

Crypto enthusiasts had hoped that the leading financial regulator was going to finally approve the listing of VanEck\u2019s spot application after it had approved a number of Bitcoin futures ETF<\/a> last month.<\/p>\n

However, their morales were dampened as the SEC insisted that it would not be approving an ETF that provides direct exposure to BTC<\/a> due to its volatile nature alongside the fact that it is unsure if the ETF would be able to prevent fraudulent trading and also protect investors.<\/p>\n

“This order disapproves of the proposed rule change. The Commission concludes that BZX has not met its burden under the Exchange Act and the Commission\u2019s Rules of Practice to demonstrate that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5), in particular, the requirement that the rules of a national securities exchange be \u201cdesigned to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices\u201d and \u201cto protect investors and the public interest,\u201d the Friday notice reads.<\/p>\n

Crypto community reacts to SEC recent rejection<\/h2>\n

With news of the SEC's latest rejection greeting the airwaves, members of the crypto community were quick to register their displeasure with many of them questioning<\/a> why the commission would be willing to accept a Bitcoin futures ETF while rejecting a Bitcoin spot ETF.<\/p>\n

A Bitcoin futures ETF is different from a Bitcoin spot ETF in the sense that the latter provides direct investment exposure to the digital asset while the former allows investors to gain indirect exposure to the asset through buying stocks via brokerage accounts.<\/p>\n

One of the responses to the SEC decision came from Blockchain Association who wrote<\/a> that it was \u201cdisappointed\u201d by the decision made by the Gary Gensler-led agency.<\/p>\n

\n

We are disappointed in today\u2019s update from the SEC declining approval of our physical bitcoin ETF. We believe that investors should be able to gain #BTC<\/a> exposure through a regulated fund and that a non-futures ETF structure is the superior approach. @tyler<\/a> @gaborgurbacs<\/a><\/p>\n

— Jan van Eck (@JanvanEck3) November 12, 2021<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n