There has been some tension in the past among the SEC members when it comes to passing or issuing a Bitcoin-oriented ETF or any other crypto ETF for that matter. The Securities and Exchange Commission has its own reservations on issuing an exchange-traded fund for Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency. Many crypto exchanges and financial enterprises have been going at it for several years now to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a Bitcoin-oriented ETF but to no avail.
Recently a new piece of news has come along; according to Bloomberg senior commodity strategist SEC might be willing to issue a Bitcoin ETF by the end of October. Mike McGlone has confirmed the news in an interview with Bloomberg. He has always been a nice contributor to the world of cryptocurrencies as he regularly keeps on sharing his insights about various cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, to be specific. He has made various significant predictions in the past regarding Bitcoin’s price; recently, he said that with whales out of the picture and market corrections tapped to the minimum, Bitcoin could cross $100K by the end of the year.
Canada Approved Many ETFs In The Past
He is among those who strongly believe that Bitcoin is going to replace gold as we know it. Mike believes that Bitcoin is, in fact, the digital gold and would tap out all the gold reserves in the world. He says that it is similar to men adopting wheels over the horse; it is part of the evolution and will happen sooner than later. Countless applications have been submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the past, all directing towards and emphasizing the SEC to pass a Bitcoin ETF. All of these have been refused even when Canada made a move on their first Bitcoin ETF and surpassed the US in doing so; SEC didn’t budge at all.
Many investors are extremely attracted to Canada right now because it has a Bitcoin ETF up and running; Mark says that this is the final push right there which is going to make the SEC approve an ETF for Bitcoin, doesn’t matter if it is a futures one because SEC would not want local investors to invest their money on foreign soil.