The investment company VanEck has applied to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a BTC futures ETF. Apparently, it reacted to the statement of SEC boss Gery Gensler, who indicated last week that this type of ETF on BTC from his point of view, it is more permeable to permits.
VanEck is one of 14 companies currently applying to the SEC for approval of a “traditional” spot BTC ETF. The final verdict should be the first of all companies to learn – no later than October 2021, when the SEC has a deadline for the final decision.
The spot ETF is tied directly to the “physical” BTC. For BTC ETF futures, which yesterday VanEck also officially requested, but this would not be the case – its value would be tied to BTC futures contracts – for example, those traded on the Chicago CME.
SEC chief Gery Gesner made it clear last week during the Aspen Security Forum that, in his view, BTC futures ETF are more open to approval than traditional spot ETFs. He justified this by saying that the SEC would have better options for potential investor protection through this type of ETF – for example, by being able to control the Chicago CME where BTC futures are traded (as opposed to the number of spot exchanges abroad where BTC is widely traded). trades and the SEC has no influence on them).
Futures ETFs are not that enticing
However, his opinion has been criticized by several analysts in the meantime. James Seyffart of Bloomberg, who is an expert in ETF funds, pointed out that this type of ETF is more expensive for issuers and investors and more difficult to manage. At the same time, spot markets are much more liquid than derivatives.
At the same time, it is very likely that such BTC futures ETFs would be less attractive to investors than traditional spot BTC ETFs. According to Seyffart, this is indicated by figures on current trading of BTC futures on CME, which are significantly lower than the interest in investing directly in BTC.
“People don’t want BTC futures exposure, but physical exposure to BTC,” He also pointed out that many investors preferred to buy shares in Microstrategy, which holds 105,000 BTC (also known as a kind of fake BTC ETF) or shares in Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC).
Better than nothing?
Despite this, it is clear from the statement of SEC President Gery Gensler that if any Bitcoins ETF are to be allowed, those tied to futures contracts have a better chance of approval.
Director of VanEck’s Digital Asset Strategy Gabor Gurbacs confirmed that their new application clearly has “An easier way to approve”. Gurbacs himself admitted last week that “the real nut” would be a spot ETF and not this type, which was not even speculated about before Gensler’s statements in BTC circles.
The battle for the traditional BTC ETF is not lost – it is still true that up to 14 companies are applying for it, including giants such as NYDIG, Fidelity and SkyBridge Capital. The SEC’s verdicts will be known later this year. However, VanEck’s latest move, combined with Gensler’s views, suggests that the BTC futures ETF is likely to be seen sooner than the coveted spot ETF on BTC.
