Apr. 15, 2022
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Sir or Madam: Please excuse me for re-sending this. I am correcting a typo in the original where I said "bitcoin ETF" but I meant to say "bitcoin futures ETF"; and some other typos. Sincerely, Jonathan Evans Dear SEC, I am a retail investor who has a mixture of traditional investments along with GBTC. I don't understand why the SEC approves futures ETF's (eg. BITO) as if they were less risky than spot ownership of bitcoin via an ETF. The bitcoin futures ETF's are guaranteed to lose value over time because of their continual contract nature. Whereas spot ownership should track the value of the underlying asset quite closely. Given that there are something like 800,000 accounts holding GBTC by people who would clearly prefer that it be an ETF, the SEC has the responsibility / duty to approve at ETF for these investors. By now, investors have seen the volatility of the underlying asset, which is also reflected in the values of the futures etf. Remember that the SEC exists to serve the investor, not traditional financial institutions. Sincerely, Jonathan Evans