SEC Official Disagrees With The New Decision To Deny Winklevoss’ Bitcoin ETF

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was in the news this week, mostly because of its decision to shut down the bid to bring the first Bitcoin ETF to a regulated US exchange, proposed by the well-known brothers in the crypto-world, the Winklevoss twins.

As a result of this action, Bitcoin stopped its bullish run and went under $8,000. The ruling was not only controversial among the crypto enthusiasts – it was also controversial for the SEC itself.

One of the SEC commissioners, named Hester M. Pierce, wrote a formal dissent about the decision, arguing that officials not only erred in denying the Winklevoss ETF – but they also exceeded the limited scope of the agency’s role in regulating the securities markets.

According to her:

“The Commission’s mission historically has been, and should continue to be, to ensure that investors have the information they need to make intelligent investment decisions and that the rules of the exchange are designed to provide transparency and prevent manipulation as market participants interact with each other. The Commission steps beyond this limited role when it focuses instead on the quality and characteristics of the markets underlying a product that an exchange seeks to list.”

Meanwhile, Peirce is a Trump administration appointee who took office in January 2018 and criticized the agency for engaging in “merit regulation”. According to her, it is not the SEC’s job to attempt to peer into the future of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. As she said:

“By precluding approval of cryptocurrency-based ETPs for the foreseeable future, the Commission is engaging in merit regulation. Bitcoin is a new phenomenon, and its long-term viability is uncertain. It may succeed; it may fail.

The Commission, however, is not well positioned to assess the likelihood of either outcome, for bitcoin or any other asset.”

Peirce alleged that the SEC’s concerns about Bitcoin mainly because of the underlying markets and the fact that they are always subject t manipulation. As she noted, other exchange-traded products (ETPs) have already been approved by the agency. However, the rules are not consistent with Bitcoin only.

Finally, she said that SEC’s decision will be harmful to investors rather than protecting them – mostly because of her opinion that it will deprive them of an opportunity to gain exposure on this nascent class in a regulated marketplace, stunting the cryptocurrency’s growth as an institutionalized asset.

“If we were to approve the ETP at issue here, investors could choose whether to buy it or avoid it. The Commission’s action today deprives investors of this choice. I reject the role of gatekeeper of innovation—a role very different from (and, indeed, inconsistent with) our mission of protecting investors, fostering capital formation, and facilitating fair, orderly, and efficient markets.

Accordingly, I dissent.” Peirce concluded.