A highly anticipated US appeals court ruling on a rejected spot bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) could significantly impact the path of cryptocurrency regulation.
The case centres on the Securities and Exchange Commission denying an application from Grayscale Investments to convert its Bitcoin Trust into an ETF backed by Bitcoin itself rather than derivatives.
Grayscale sued the SEC after its bid was blocked despite other bitcoin futures ETFs being approved. It argues the regulator applied a double standard in permitting futures products but stopping its spot ETF.
The outcome carries major implications for crypto regulation. If Grayscale wins, the SEC could be forced to approve its application specifically or others awaiting spot bitcoin ETF approval more broadly.
Several asset management giants like BlackRock and Fidelity have applied for spot bitcoin ETFs this year as the industry tries to open the door to cryptocurrency investments for mainstream investors.
During court hearings earlier this year, judges seemed sceptical of the SEC’s rationale for denying spot bitcoin products while accepting nearly identical protections for futures ETFs.
But the regulator maintains there are still concerns over potential manipulation in spot bitcoin markets that haven’t been sufficiently addressed. It says futures ETFs trading on regulated exchanges carry much less risk.
The appeals decision could swing the advantage clearly to either the SEC or the crypto industry pushing for greater access. If the court sides against the regulator, it may have to loosen its stringent standards.
Even if Grayscale loses, the reasons provided by the court could give crucial direction to other firms on shaping stronger ETF applications that finally meet SEC approval.
After recent crypto market turmoil, the SEC has only grown warier of potential risks in allowing new products. But a Grayscale court win could force its hand.
The ruling carries enormous stakes for both sides in shaping cryptocurrency’s path to mainstream finance. All eyes will be on what the appeals court decides.
