When Bitcoin ETF? Not Any Time Soon, But Maybe by 2020

Money manager VanEck, financial services firm SolidX and Cboe BZX Exchange withdrew a highly-anticipated proposal Tuesday, citing an ongoing U.S. government shutdown as the reason. The proposal, first filed last June, faced a final deadline of February 27 for approval or rejection. Due to the shutdown, many legal experts anticipated that the SEC would reject the proposal outright rather than let it be approved by default.Other companies are also hesitant to file for a bitcoin ETF while the regulator is in a state of limbo. Bitwise Asset Management, which announced its intention to file for a fund with NYSE Arca earlier this month, has not yet submitted the required rule change proposal. Bitwise did not respond to a request for comment by press time.Once a proposal is filed, the SEC has 240 days to approve or deny it, should the regulator take every extension allowable under the law. As such, any proposal filed by May 5, 2019 at the latest would require a final decision before December 31, Chervinsky explained.

Cboe Exchange Withdraws Proposal for VanEck-SolidX Bitcoin ETF

The Cboe BZX Exchange has withdrawn a proposed rule change that, if approved, would clear the way for a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) backed by VanEck and SolidX.The proposal was filed last June, when VanEck, an investment firm, teamed up with financial services provider SolidX to provide a physically-backed bitcoin ETF to the market (other such proposals have relied on bitcoin futures contracts, rather than the cryptocurrency’s price itself).“We were engaged in discussions with the SEC about the bitcoin-related issues, custody, market manipulation, prices, and that had to stop. And so, instead of trying to slip through or something, we just had the application pulled and we will re-file when the SEC gets going again,” van Eck told the network.In a previous interview with CoinDesk, attorney Ethan Silver, chair of the broker-dealer practice at Lowenstein Sandler, explained that “if [the SEC] were forced to deal with [the proposal], they would sooner deny it than be put in a position [where it is approved on a technicality].”