Jun. 17, 2021
I disaprove of this proposed rule change regarding the VanEck Bitcoin Trust ETF. 1) Bitcoin (BTC, BCH, BSV) are Proof of Work (current efficiency) networks, whereas ETFs are Proof of Stake (proof of loyalty to fiat in the past). It is therefore inappropriate to let ETFs interact with Proof of Work networks because Proof of Stake (fiat) is inherently prone to aggression (destruction), whereas Proof of Work is inherently prone to efficiency. To maximize the quality of life of all peoples, we need to focus on maximizing efficiency, not reward bullies who steal from such efficiencies. 2) False assertion: the bitcoin protocol has not changed significantly since 2016. 3) False asseriton: rather, risk is mitigated the greater the efficiency of Proof of Work networks. An ETF (and non-fee taxes upon it) would reduce Bitcoin's efficiency, and thus make it more risky and volatile. 4) It is fallacy to try to localize the market for Bitcoin (BTC, BCH, BSV) with exchanges such as the CME, Coinbaise, Bitstamp, Gemini etc, because this physical localization limits the effeciency of globally situated mining. For example, Bitcoin trades 24/7, whereas local markets are only active 8 hours a day. 5) False assertion: anyone who does not actively mine Bitcoin is attempting to manipulated the price of Bitcoin. This ETF is not actively mining Bitcoin (it is Proof of Stake). In Summary: Game Theory says that ETFs are parasite middle-persons who seek to leach away at the efficiency of its proof of work. I disaprove. Jason Green