BlackRock conteste la distinction de la SEC pour les contrats à terme cryptographiques et les ETF au comptant

• BlackRock a déclaré que la SEC n'avait aucune justification logique pour faire la différence entre les ETF au comptant BTC et les ETF à terme.
• La SEC affirme que les ETF à terme cryptographiques bénéficient d’une réglementation et d’une protection des consommateurs supérieures en vertu de la loi 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.

Le leader de la gestion d'actifs a présenté son projet de ETF spot-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 application, the firm questioned the regulator’s treatment of Bitcoin spot ETFs. 

BlackRock affirme que la SEC a utilisé une logique sans fondement pour tracer une ligne entre les ETF au comptant Bitcoin et les ETF à terme Bitcoin, approuvant ces derniers et rejetant plusieurs demandes des premiers. 

“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.

Lire ici : https://t.co/7mwYNWDHRo https://t.co/fAgVBnOBZZ

– Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) 10 novembre 2023

Il est important de noter que la SEC n’a pas approuvé un seul ETF au comptant Bitcoin malgré la réception d’une douzaine de demandes émanant de grandes sociétés de gestion d’actifs. Cependant, l'agence a approuvé les ETF à terme Bitcoin, affirmant qu'ils bénéficient d'une réglementation et d'une protection des consommateurs supérieures en vertu de la loi de 1940, par opposition à la loi de 1933, qui couvre les ETF de crypto-monnaie au comptant.

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.”

Comme indiqué précédemment par Bitnation, le PDG de BlackRock, Larry Fink, a révélé que la société de gestion d'actifs avait a investi $24 millions dans l'échange cryptographique FTX, désormais en faillite.

Dernières nouvelles