Feb. 24, 2022
As stated on the SEC’s website: “The mission of the SEC is to protect investors” and “The SEC strives to promote a market environment that is worthy of the public's trust.” If the SEC rejects Grayscale’s spot Bitcoin ETF application, it would go a long way to promoting the public’s trust in the agency if the SEC would be so kind as to explain the reasons for the denial. Specifically, I would appreciate a clear and straightforward answer to a few specific questions: 1. Spot BTC ETFs have been available in other countries, so are there examples of investors be harmed in those countries that concern you? 2. Compared to the BTC Futures ETF (which the SEC has approved), what elements unique to a spot ETF do you deem a potential danger to investors? 3. How is a spot BTC ETF an unsafe option for investors compared to the BTC options currently available to US investors?: a. Buy BTC directly and hold it on the exchange b. Buy BTC directly and self-custody c. Buy GBTC O.T.C (which is currently trading below NAV and get dinged 2% every year) d. Buy BITO 4. Would you agree that a Futures ETF best service the needs of institutional investors and caution retail investors from playing in those waters? 5. Does the SEC give consideration to the current plight of retail investors with nest-eggs tied up in retirement accounts that therefore don’t have the option of buying BTC directly? 6. With the Grayscale Trust be restricted to Accredited Investors and BTC futures being a vehicle primarily for sophisticated investors, do you understand that its likely and reasonable for the public to conclude that the SEC’s priority appears to cater to the elites, that retail investors take a backseat? I learned a lot from watching Chairman Gensler’s excellent MIT course on blockchain, and I am eager for his agency to finally approve a spot ETF. But if not, I hope the explanation for the rejection is just as clear as Mr. Gensler’s lectures. Sincerely, Retired CPA