【Conspiracy Theory】Why I Think the BTC Spot ETF Won't Get Approved in January? | 【阴谋论】为什么我认为1月的BTC现货ETF不能通过呢？

Disclaimer: This is a subjective, potentially extreme, and possibly unreliable analysis.

So, why am I analyzing this? Simply because most entities in the world, including individuals, companies, financial institutions... regulatory bodies... struggle to be entirely free from interests. What I call conspiracy theory is an analysis from TVBee, not fully comprehensive or objective, but from a perspective of vested interests.

➤SEC vs Institutions

Several institutions have been repeatedly rejected in their applications for a BTC spot ETF.

However, I, TVBee, still believe that the SEC and most of these institutions are in a community of interests. These institutions applying for the BTC spot ETF, except for Grayscale, were traditional financial institutions compliant with U.S. regulations before the advent of cryptocurrencies.

Regulatory bodies and regulated entities are essentially in a community of interests. Like parents and children, they are fundamentally a family.

Regulatory bodies aim for the health of the regulated entities and the market, from which they also benefit. Just like parents feel prouder and enjoy better material conditions when their children do well and earn more.

Grayscale is different; it's a digital asset institution, including U.S. crypto institutions like Coinbase, still smoothing out their relationship with the SEC. That's why Grayscale sued the SEC; they haven't established a stable and harmonious relationship yet.

The relationship between the crypto market and the SEC is similar. The SEC can't regulate the entire crypto market because some on-chain parts and some trading platforms are outside of SEC's jurisdiction.

Thus, the SEC hopes that compliant U.S. institutions can hold enough BTC chips, putting a larger portion of the BTC market under SEC's regulation. The longer the BTC spot ETF is delayed, the more opportunities these financial institutions have to accumulate BTC.

➤SEC+Institutions vs Market

Remember this chart? I, TVBee, even said in the group that this rise seemed forcibly created.

Clearly, the factor driving this rise is the BTC spot ETF.

I, TVBee, have summarized more than once:
The bull top in 2017 was when U.S. regulators approved BTC futures.
In 2021, the bull market expectation ended in the first half, but at year-end, the SEC approved the BTC futures ETF, leading to new highs for BTC.

The positive impact of a spot ETF far exceeds that of futures and futures ETFs, so it significantly influences the market. According to expectations in 2019, a mini-bull in the first half of 2023 and a pullback in the second half are likely. Moreover, the second half of 2023 is the tail end of the rate hike cycle, the peak of Fed rates and U.S. Treasury yields since 2008, all unfavorable for BTC's trend. However, the expectation of the BTC spot ETF brought about the mini-bull market.

Thus, the spot ETF can be seen as a market manipulation tool.

Moreover, this manipulation doesn't require spending money to pump the market. The BTC spot ETF could be the biggest substantial positive for BTC history. Once approved, there might never be another tool with such significant impact.

So, the question arises: will the SEC and institutions easily give up the ETF as a market manipulation tool?

➤SEC vs Court

Some may argue that ARK Fund's application has already been delayed three times, and it can't be postponed a fourth time.

But that doesn't guarantee approval. Binance settled with CFTC (U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission) and other regulatory bodies, but not with the SEC. Also, the SEC sued Coinbase earlier this year and Kraken last month, with no results yet. This implies that the SEC hasn't established sufficient regulatory cooperation with the BTC trading market, so if the SEC rejects, it's not entirely without reason.

Even though it can't be postponed a fourth time, Winklevoss Capital Management, the first institution to apply for a BTC spot ETF in 2013, was rejected in 2217 after about four years. The SEC's discretion to delay can't be ruled out.

If the SEC unreasonably rejects or delays, at most, you can sue them in court, as Grayscale did.

But the court ruling requiring the SEC to provide a reasonable response within a certain time doesn't force the SEC to approve the BTC spot ETF application.

On the surface, Grayscale won. But what did the SEC lose?

Did the SEC compensate Grayscale for related losses during this time? Did the SEC apologize to Grayscale?

Did the SEC lose?

So, even if the SEC unreasonably rejects or delays the BTC spot ETF, what can you do? You can't make them pay compensation or apologize, nor can you make them go back in time and approve the BTC spot ETF application. So, in the end, didn't the SEC successfully delay the application?!

➤Crypto Manipulators vs Institutional Manipulators

In the first half of this year, I, TVBee, observed that pumping usually happened on Saturdays. That should be the crypto whales.

Recently, I suspect institutional whales are doing the pumping, as it's been happening at the beginning of Mondays or the end of Fridays. Institutions rest on weekends.

So, why would institutions pump? We know that issuing a BTC spot ETF requires stocking BTC spot. If institutions want to issue a spot ETF, they should hope for a BTC price drop to accumulate, right?

A Bloomberg analyst suggested, “The SEC might approve the spot Bitcoin ETF around January 8 to 10 next year, but we expect the SEC will restrict these funds from using physical creation and redemption of shares.” If so, it means that institutions issuing so-called BTC spot ETFs will be restricted from using actual BTC for creation and redemption.

If that's the case, institutions issuing so-called BTC spot ETFs wouldn’t need to reserve actual BTC, meaning even significant BTC ETF demand wouldn’t increase the demand for BTC spot. Conversely, the market might purchase BTC ETFs instead of BTC spot. This not only eliminates the positive aspect but could also potentially be a negative. Such BTC ETFs should not be termed as BTC spot ETFs!

➤ Information vs Capital (Unrelated to Conspiracy Theories)

The recent price rise might be related to this, as ARK Invest's Bitcoin spot ETF ticker ARKB is now listed on the DTCC (Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation) website.

I, TVBee, asked GPT, and the response was that this is a positive signal, but it doesn’t guarantee final approval.

Although ARK Invest's ETF product is listed on the DTCC website, ARK Invest has been continuously selling off Coinbase stocks, with a total sale amount of $196.8 million in December.

In the end, I, TVBee, hope this article turns out to be wrong! (Still from a vested interest perspective, I am not only a speculator but also a Web3 practitioner. Even if I'm not holding any positions, as long as the industry thrives, I benefit!)

【阴谋论】为什么我认为1月的BTC现货ETF不能通过呢？

事先声明，这是一篇主观、偏激甚至可能不靠谱的分析。

那么，为什么我又要分析呢？很简单，世界上大部分主体，包括人、公司、金融机构……监管机构……都很难做到完全摆脱利益。所谓阴谋论，是小蜜蜂从利益相关的视角进行一些不够全面的、不够客观的分析。

➤SEC vs 机构

若干机构数次申请BTC现货ETF被拒。

但是，小蜜蜂依然认为，SEC与大部分这些机构是利益共同体。申请BTC现货ETF这些机构，除了灰度，在没有加密货币之前，都是传统的金融机构，都是符合美国监管的机构。

监管机构和被监管主体其实是利益共同体。就像家长和孩子，本身就是一家人。

监管机构是为了被监管主体和市场更健康，这样监管机构从中也能获得更多的利益。就像孩子发展好、赚钱多，家长更有面子，物质条件也会更好一样。

灰度不同，灰度是数字资产机构，包括coinbase这类美国加密机构，它们和SEC的关系还在磨合中。这就是为什么灰度会起诉SEC，它们还没有稳定和谐的关系。

加密市场和SEC的关系也是类似的道理，SEC并不能监管全部加密市场，因为链上部分和一些交易平台，在SEC监管之外。

所以，SEC希望美国的合规机构，可以持有足够多的BTC筹码，这样会有更大的BTC市场处于SEC监管之下。BTC现货ETF拖的越久，这些金融机构可以吸筹的机会也就越多。

➤SEC+机构 vs 市场

还记得这个图吗？小蜜蜂当时还在群里说，这一波上涨就像有人强行制造出来的一样。

显然，这个制造上涨的因素就是BTC现货ETF。

小蜜蜂不止一次总结过：
2017年牛顶，美国监管机构通过了BTC期货。
2021年，上半年牛市预期就结束了，但年底SEC通过了BTC期货ETF，于是BTC又迎来了新高。

现货ETF的利好远超过期货和期货ETF，所以它对行情的影响很大。按照2019年的预期，2023上半年小牛、下半年回调。何况2023年下半年是加息周期的尾部，是2008年以来美联储利率和美国国债收益率的巅峰，这些都不利于BTC的趋势。然而，BTC现货ETF的预期，带来了小牛行情。

所以，现货ETF可以说是一个操纵市场的工具。

并且，这个操纵工作，是不需要花钱去拉盘的。BTC现货ETF可以应该是BTC史上最大的实质性利好了，一旦通过，能有如此巨大影响力的工具可能不会再有。

那么问题来了，SEC和机构，会不会轻易放弃ETF这个操纵市场的工具？

➤SEC vs 法院

有的小伙伴会提出，方舟基金(ARK) 申请已经被拖了3次了，第4次不能再拖了。

但是，这不代表一定会通过。币安与CFTC(美国商品期货交易委员会)等监管部门和解，但唯独没有和SEC和解。另外，SEC在今年上半年起诉了coinbase，在上个月起诉了Kraken都没有出结果。这意味着，SEC与BTC交易市场之间并没有达成足够的监管合作，所以SEC如果拒绝，也不是完全没有理由。

另外，虽然说第4次不能再拖。Winklevoss twins的温克莱沃斯资本管理公司是第一个申请BTC现货ETF的机构，申请时间是2013年，但是2217年被拒绝。这中间经历了大约4年时间。不能排除，SEC有一些推迟的酌情权。

退一步说，SEC理由不充分的拒绝或推迟，你最多只能到法院起诉，灰度就是这么做的。

但是法院裁定让SEC在若干时间内给出合理回应，法院不能要求SEC通过BTC现货ETF申请。

表面上看，灰度胜诉了。但是，SEC又有什么损失呢？

SEC因为不合理的拒绝，给灰度这段时间的相关损失赔钱了？SEC给灰度道歉了？

SEC输了吗？

所以，就算SEC用不充分的理由拒绝或推迟BTC现货ETF，你能拿他怎么样呢？你既不能让他赔钱、也不能让他道歉，更不可能让他退回到以前的时间上通过BTC现货ETF申请。那么最后，SEC还不是成功的推迟了申请？！

➤币圈庄 vs 机构庄

今年上半年，小蜜蜂观察，拉盘的时间大概率在周六。这应该是币圈的庄。

最近，小蜜蜂观察拉盘的时间在周一刚开始或者周五快结束的时间。小蜜蜂怀疑这是机构庄。因为机构在周六周日休息。

那么，机构为什么拉盘呢？我们知道BTC现货ETF发行，是需要储备BTC现货的。机构如果想发行现货ETF，应该是希望BTC价格下跌，以便于他们吸筹才对啊！

有彭博分析师提出，“SEC 可能会在明年 1 月 8 日至 10 日左右批准现货比特币 ETF，但我们预计 SEC 将限制这些基金使用实物创建和赎回股份” 如果是这样，意味着机构发行所谓的BTC现货ETF，限制使用BTC现货和赎回BTC现货。

如果是这样，机构发行所谓的BTC现货ETF，不需要储备BTC现货，有再大的BTC ETF需求，也不会增加BTC现货的需求。相反，市场可能去购买BTC ETF 而不是BTC现货。这不仅利好没有了，可能还有利空。而这种BTC ETF 也不能称之为BTC现货ETF了！

➤信息 vs 资金(这里和阴谋论无关)

这两天的上涨，可能和这个有关，ARK Invest比特币现货ETF代码ARKB已在DTCC(美国证券集中保管结算公司)网站列出。

小蜜蜂就问了一下GPT，他的回答是，这是积极信号，但并不保证最终会获批。

虽然ARK Invest的ETF产品被DTCC网站列出，但是，ARK Invest却在连续减持coinbase股票。12月总销售额为1.968亿美元。

最后，小蜜蜂希望自己这篇文章是打脸的！(仍然是利益相关视角，小蜜蜂不仅是投机者，也是Web3从业者。即使空仓，只要这个行业好，小蜜蜂就有利益！)