SEC’s first deadlines to approve 7 Bitcoin ETFs coming over the next week

August 30, 2023 Coin Telegraph

Appeal

Analysts say the best-case scenario is the SEC approves the batch of spot Bitcoin ETFs but it may also exercise its right to an appeal.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission is facing its first deadlines to decide on seven new Bitcoin (BTC) spot exchange-traded fund applications with the latest being Sept. 4 amid its defeat to Grayscale Investments in a U.S. federal appeals court.

Investment firm Bitwise will learn if its ETF will win the SEC’s approval on Sept. 1 while BlackRock, VanEck, Fidelity, Invesco and Wisdomtree will all be awaiting the SEC’s decision for their funds by Sept. 2, according to several SEC filings.

Meanwhile, Valkyrie is set to hear back from the SEC on Sept. 4.

*List of recent Bitcoin spot ETF applicant filing dates and deadlines. Source: Bloomberg*

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on Aug. 29 that the SEC’s rejection of Grayscale’s application to convert its Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) into a spot Bitcoin ETF was “arbitrary and capricious” — but it doesn’t mean the SEC must approve Grayscale’s application or others in the future, says Bloomberg ETF analyst James Seyffart.

In an Aug. 29 Bloomberg interview, Seyffart explained Grayscale’s win “definitely” increases the odds of a successful outcome for the next wave of applicants.

He isn’t sure when that day may come though, as the SEC can delay its decisions and has two more proposed deadlines for each fund before being forced to make a final decision on the 240th day post-filing.

For the awaiting applicants, the final deadlines for the SEC are al mid-March next year.

99.99999% of the world doesn't know that the SEC has to decide on 7 BTC ETFs within the next 3 days:

-blackrock
-bitwise
-vaneck
-wisdomtree
-invesco
-fidelity
-valkyrie

the suits at our doorstep
— odin free (@odin_free) August 29, 2023

What are the SEC’s options post-Grayscale decision?

After today’s ruling in favor of Grayscale, the regulator has 90 days to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court or apply for an En banc review — where a full circuit court can overturn a ruling made by a three-judge panel.

However, the SEC hasn’t made clear what its next move will be.

If the SEC doesn’t appeal the court will need to specify how its ruling is executed which could include instructing the SEC to approve Grayscale’s application, or at the very least revisit it.

Either way, Seyffart only saw two viable options for the regulator.

The first is for it to concede defeat and approve Grayscale’s conversion of its GBTC to a Bitcoin spot ETF.

Alternatively, the SEC would need to revoke the listing of Bitcoin futures ETFs entirely or deny Grayscale’s application based on a new argument, said Seyffart.

The second potential avenue is to deny on reasons not used before/yet... which i have been saying for months could have to do with Custody or settlement of #Bitcoin which is not something that futures ETFs have to worry about. SEC has made a lot of noise around custodians
— James Seyffart (@JSeyff) August 29, 2023

However, fellow Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas considered the odds of the SEC revoking the Bitcoin futures ETFs as “highly unlikely” because of the SEC's reported openness to Ethereum futures ETFs.

Lol, this guy turned the last paragraph of Judge Rao's legal smackdown today into an MGMT-esque sythe banger. Really captures the mood rn, well done.. https://t.co/BBJZR5O6To
— Eric Balchunas (@EricBalchunas) August 29, 2023

Magazine: Hall of Flame: Wolf Of All Streets worries about a world where Bitcoin hits $1M

House Republicans Demand Answers From SEC Over FTX Co-Founder’s Arrest

February 12, 2023 Bitcoin.com

Ooki DAO misses lawsuit response deadline, default judgment on the cards

January 12, 2023 Coin Telegraph

California

The commodities regulator has begun the process of getting a court ruling on the Ooki DAO case after the latter failed to respond to the lawsuit by the deadline.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun the process of getting a default judgment in its case against Ooki DAO after the latter missed the deadline to respond to the lawsuit.

According to a Jan. 11 court filing, the regulator has requested the court for an "entry of default" against the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), stating it had missed the deadline to "answer or otherwise defend" as instructed by the summons.

If approved, the entry of default will establish Ooki DAO has failed to plead or defend itself in court and will no longer be able to answer or respond to the suit.

An "entry of default" is the first step in the process of gaining a default judgment — a ruling handed down by the court when the defendant fails to defend a lawsuit.

The lawsuit in question was filed by the CFTC on Sept. 22, accusing Ooki DAO of illegally offering “leveraged and margined” digital asset commodity transactions to retail traders along with failing to enact a way to identify customers and “engaging in activities only registered futures commission merchants (FCM) can perform.”

The lawsuit was served to the DAO through its help chat box along with a notice on its online forum.

In December, District Judge William Orrick ordered the regulator to serve Tom Bean and Kyle Kistner, the founders of a predecessor trading platform to Ooki DAO, adding the CFTC “should serve at least one identifiable Token Holder if that is possible.”

Bringing forward the lawsuit without clear regulatory guidelines had many criticize the regulator. CFTC commissioner Summer Mersinger even called the action a “regulation by enforcement” approach.

The case could set an interesting precedent for future lawsuits involving DAOs as charges and enforcement will be carried out against an organizational structure with no central body that often includes anonymous members.

In a Dec. 20 court filing, Judge Orrick said Ooki DAO "has the capacity to be sued as an unincorporated association under state law" but said that does not "necessarily establish" the DAO is an association which can be held liable under commodities regulations.

He added those questions can be addressed "later in litigation."