Who Needs a Bitcoin ETF? Crypto Scoffs at SEC Rejections

Up until Wednesday, all eyes were watching for a final decision on two futures-backed bitcoin ETF proposals set to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange and created by ProShares.

Just last month, the results of one such review over the Winklevoss bitcoin ETF was released, ultimately re-affirming the initial rejection.

Still, the fallout from this week's events on the matter of regulatory approval over a bitcoin ETF has left many in the crypto community jaded over what feels to be a continuing uphill battle.

Some have taken to Twitter in accusing the agency, in part jokingly, of using their powers of regulatory disapproval then review to "Stress test" the bitcoin markets.

To be fair, market manipulation was a key reason specified for the initial disapproval of all nine ETF proposals, though to the wider crypto community this decision was taken primarily as a barrage of attacks by the agency deliberately meant to hinder the growth of the industry.

Interestingly enough, the SEC did stop just short of handing down a rejection on all ten bitcoin ETF proposals said to be decided upon in the next two months.

One remains in this respect put forth by VanEck and SolidX for a physical bitcoin ETF that commentators in the past have touted as being the strongest candidate of the batch.

Important to note in the midst of the discussion, is a strain of bitterness expressed by some regarding all the hubbub and attention bitcoin ETFs have been sparking as of late.

The reoccurring critique by such commentators being that bitcoin ETFs aren't all that interesting, let alone, necessary for the continued growth of crypto markets.

To the ones that hold bitcoin as an asset otherly in nature from mainstream financial assets and not compatible in the guise of institutional investment vehicles such at ETFs, the rejections by the SEC have been touted as "a blessing in disguise" and a decision for review as nothing more than "Overrated" news.