Yesterday, Dave Nadig, managing director of ETF.com, said in an interview with CNBC that the US Securities and Exchange Commission is still at the stage of information collection in the bitcoin ETF.
Dave Nadig also said in an interview at ETF Edge:
- Bitwise withdraws application to SEC, bitcoin ETF approval is hopeless?
- Did Bitfinex kill the bull market? The US SEC may not approve the Bitcoin ETF this time.
- SEC rejects Wilshire Phoenixd's Bitcoin ETF application
- US SEC postpones ruling on another Bitcoin ETF proposal, how is this proposal different than in the past?
- Jimmy Song: All those who are not optimistic about Bitcoin will eventually escape the "true incense" theory.
- Bitcoin fell below $ 8,600 overnight, and the entire network exceeded $ 879 million
"Obviously, the SEC is still collecting information. Generally speaking, there are deadlines, but the SEC wants to do what it wants, so the deadline is not a problem in their eyes. When are they ready? But obviously, they are not ready yet."
Dave Nadig believes that the SEC will eventually approve the Bitcoin ETF, but not now. What regulators are waiting for is the maturity of the market.
Earlier today, the SEC announced that it had postponed the proposed VanEck Bitcoin ETF decision again and continued to collect more information from the public. As previously reported, the SEC also postponed a decision on the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF and asked relevant parties to comment.
In December of last year, Hester Peirce, a SEC commissioner who was called "encrypted mother" against the SEC's rejection of the Winklevoss brothers proposal, also said that the Bitcoin ETF is definitely possible, but it will take several years.
In early May, Gary Gensler, former chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said that in terms of the development and potential growth of the encryption market, people should understand that the law protects the situation of investors and consumers.
Remarks: Bitcoin86 manuscript article, please indicate the source. The article is an independent view of the author and does not represent the standing position.