BlackRock desafía la distinción de la SEC para futuros criptográficos y ETF al contado

• BlackRock dijo que la SEC no tiene ninguna justificación lógica para diferenciar entre ETF al contado y de futuros de BTC.
• La SEC afirma que los ETF de futuros criptográficos tienen una regulación y protección al consumidor superiores en virtud de la Ley de 1940.
• The 1940 Act lacks relevance in this area, as it places “certain restrictions on ETFs and ETF sponsors,” it said.
• BlackRock filed for an Ether spot ETF called the “iShares Ethereum Trust” on November 9.

---

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management firm with around $9.4 trillion in assets under management, has stated that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has no grounds to differentiate between Bitcoin spot exchange-traded fund (ETF) and BTC futures ETFs. The regulator has no valid reason for the rejection of spot ETF applications, the firm said.

La firma líder en gestión de activos presentó su plan para una ETF al contado de Ether (ETH) called the “iShares Ethereum Trust” on November 9, resulting in a surge in the price of ETH. Nasdaq submitted the 19b-4 application form to the SEC on behalf of BlackRock, and in its solicitud, the firm questioned the regulator’s treatment of Bitcoin spot ETFs. 

BlackRock afirma que la SEC ha utilizado una lógica infundada para trazar una línea entre los ETF al contado de Bitcoin y los ETF de futuros de Bitcoin, aprobando los últimos y rechazando múltiples solicitudes de los primeros. 

“Given that the Commission has approved ETFs that offer exposure to ETH futures, which themselves are priced based on the underlying spot ETH market, the Sponsor believes that the Commission must also approve ETPs that offer exposure to spot ETH,” said the asset management firm. 

I took Scott's advice and read Blackrock's argument for approval of a spot ETH ETF.

It's very compelling.

The argument flows from Grayscale's DC Circuit victory: the SEC can't lawfully approve ETH futures ETFs but not a spot ETH ETF. I agree.

Leer aquí: https://t.co/7mwYNWDHRo https://t.co/fAgVBnOBZZ

—Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) 10 de noviembre de 2023

Es importante señalar que la SEC no ha aprobado ni un solo ETF al contado de Bitcoin a pesar de haber recibido una docena de solicitudes para el mismo de empresas líderes en gestión de activos. Sin embargo, la agencia aprobó los ETF de futuros de Bitcoin, alegando que tienen una regulación y protección al consumidor superiores en virtud de la Ley de 1940, a diferencia de la Ley de 1933, que cubre los ETF de criptomonedas al contado.

Further, it seems that the SEC also favors regulation and surveillance-sharing agreements over the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s (CME’s) digital asset futures market. Interestingly, BlackRock claims that the SEC’s preference for the 1940 Act lacks relevance in this area, as it places “certain restrictions on ETFs and ETF sponsors” and not the underlying assets of the ETFs.

The regulator said that “none of these restrictions address an ETF’s underlying assets, whether ETH futures or spot ETH, or the markets from which such assets’ pricing is derived, whether the CME ETH futures market or spot ETH markets,” while adding:

“As a result, the Sponsor believes that the distinction between registration of ETH futures ETFs under the 1940 Act and the registration of spot ETH ETPs under the 1933 Act is one without a difference in the context of ETH-based ETP proposals.”

BlackRock also noted that by approving Bitcoin futures ETFs via CME, the SEC “clearly determined that CME surveillance can detect spot-market fraud that would affect spot ETPs.”

Como informó anteriormente Bitnation, el director ejecutivo de BlackRock, Larry Fink, reveló que la empresa de gestión de activos había invirtió $24 millones en el ahora quebrado intercambio de cifrado FTX.

Últimas noticias