83 Interactions, 2 Today
Dozens of Bitcoin Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) applications have been submitted with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and are currently gathering dust. This hasn’t stopped businesses from trying. Skybridge, a worldwide investment firm, is the most current to do so, having applied to launch a new crypto-based ETF with a twist.
The new fund will be called the ‘First Trust SkyBridge Crypto Industry and Digital Economy ETF,’ according to the filing before the SEC. It aims to invest 80% of its net assets into companies working within the crypto-industry and digital economy. The rest will be invested in shares of financial and information technology companies.
It is important to note that this fund will not have any direct exposure to Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency.
Why? Because Skybridge filed an application for a Bitcoin ETF early this year. The SEC, on the other hand, has continually postponed its review and judgement on the matter. In June, the company also launched a private Ether fund, with CEO Anthony Scaramucci promising that an ETF will follow soon. However, that may no longer be the case, after the firm abruptly withdrew its Ether ETF proposals late last month.
Since a cryptocurrency-backed ETF is unlikely to be approved in the United States, funds like the one Scaramucci’s company is applying for might operate as a proxy for investors to acquire indirect exposure to the industry in a way that the regulator would approve of.
It appears to be a plausible option at a time when both investors and financial firms are clamouring for an ETF that will allow higher sums of money to flow into the market.
Just recently, another firm that is waiting for its BTC ETF to get approved prodded the SEC in a private meeting. According to a recent report, Fidelity Investments urged the regulator to approve its fund during the same. In doing so, Fidelity cited increasing investor interest and the existence of similar funds worldwide.
The corporation also chastised Commissioner Gary Gensler for expressing support for a Futures-based ETF. Instead, Fidelity argued that futures products are an unnecessary intermediate step because firms should be able to provide “investor demand for direct exposure to Bitcoin” under prefered 1930s rules because the market has already “matured.”