December 19, 2019
Dear Sir/Madam, In all the letters which say 'yes' to approve the Bitcoin ETP, I am yet to hear a genuinely compelling argument which makes me say: 'yes' this is a great idea, let's go for it. I hold Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and am still not convinced that there is a genuine reason behind these proposals. My question is a simple one- Why do we need a Bitcoin ETP or ETF at all? What is the one fundamental reason that is driving this, and will an ETP or ETF satisfy this reason? I am not going to provide reasons against it, but take a look at some recent arguments provided for it, that should warrant concern. If we examine some of the arguments by Professor James J. Angel, Ph.D., CFA (Associate Professor of Finance at Georgetown University) (https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-39/srnysearca201939-6545889-200616.pdf) 1) "The United States Bitcoin and Treasury Investment Trust (BXT) is a safer product than other proposed crypto ETPs. It is less risky than many common stocks." This is a logical fallacy- he has committed what is known as a "Hasty Generalisation". A hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because there’s no single agreed-upon measure for “sufficient” evidence. In this case, are the very general and broad example's enough to prove the claims that it is a safe enough and less risky product to warrant an approval? Moreover, if an ETP or an ETF will be used as a vehicle by funds to invest people's hard-earned money for the purposes of a pension- then it is important to understand the risks, especially if Bitcoin has the possibility, as the Professor rightly suggests, can go to $0. 2) "Investors can invest in many innovative products that may or may not pan out. The SEC should not engage in merit regulation." In this statement, he has committed a form of the "Bandwagon Fallacy". In a nutshell form of this argument often looks like this: “Many people do or think X, so you ought to do or think X too.” I am positive the fallacy is self-evident in his statement. I can go on with the errors in logic in quite a few of the statements in the Associate Professors arguments. But what is worrying is that having read through the arguments put forward I do not see any credible or authentic reasons for why a Bitcoin ETP should go ahead. And this is coming from a Professor of Finance with a PHD and CFA after his name. This is the same for the arguments set out by William Herrmann, the Managing Partner for Wilshire Phoenix Funds LLC (https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-39/srnysearca201939-6563962-201028.pdf) who commits the 'Bandwagon', Equivocation (ambiguity)', 'Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)' fallacies and a number of other arguments that do not do justice for the case to approve a Bitcoin ETP. I see this all the time in the arguments presented for a Bitcoin ETP or ETF and it is getting tiresome. It is also worrying to constantly read every few days (through Cryptocurrency Magazines) that former employees of the CFTC or SEC are now in positions with Blockchain companies. We as consumers need to know that the decisions taken are genuinely in our best interest and not self-serving for those involved in the decision-making process. Furthermore, with the likes of Tim Draper coming out and suggesting Bitcoin 'could' hit $250K/BTC in 2020 and John McAfee betting on a $1million/BTC in 2020, it is just becoming a circus, with no real fundamentals to suggest that this will be the case. It is in their interest to create FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). And with people such as these who I see as bad actors/or individuals with 'low protected values' acting as the voice for the masses in this industry then the SEC and other agencies should show more caution. To date, I have not heard any genuine or convincing arguments why a Bitcoin ETP/ETF is necessary at all. I strongly recommend that no Bitcoin ETP or ETF should be approved in this current state of affairs. Regards, James Williams