As Bernard Lunn reiterated in yesterday’s post Blockchain needs to become technically boring, much like TCP/IP in depth knowledge has become for internet users.

In wealth management, ETF structures have become technically boring long time ago.

Nobody cares and often most users don’t understand the magic redemption/creation process. Most users don’t even know the instrumental role of Authorized Participants (APs) in the smooth functioning of ETF markets. For those wanting to know more around this topic, we outlined the main risks in Are ETFs Trackers that Fintech can turn into Trucks with No Brakes?

Naturally, the media highlights malfunctions in the ETF market during flash crashes. As robo-advisors have accelerated the growth of low-cost passive investing, mainly through ETFs, we have been following such events which showcase incidents of illiquidity and mispricing. Check last summer’s mis-communication debacle in The Betterment/Brexit incident – What the Fintech Genome community spotted.

At the same time, we don’t get excited anymore by the fact that we can invest in the Japanese stock market (and many other country trackers) while they are even asleep and from almost any location.

ETFs are boring!

Except for the recent disapproval by the SEC of the Bitcoin ETF filed by the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF, $COIN. We covered the “boring” part of it (i.e. the amendments) last week Wedding announcements pending between Old & New Finance Tribes: Bitcoin in an ETF gown!

We need to revisit the topic after the rejection this weekend, to cover two areas:

1.    What did we learn about Bitcoin trading, during this event

2.    What did we learn about the state of capital markets, following this event.

Mid March Bitcoin trading

Lots of worthwhile observations from the market reaction to this event.

Bitcoin is trading as we speak, with a twelve hundred handle (in USD) which is not that far from where it was hovering before the decision. That shows that the bitcoin market continues to shrug off events (from 2 recent PBOC decisions, to the ETF rejection). Market capitalization is also more or less in line, having recovered from dips, to the $20bil area.

This reflects, in my opinion, the steady growth in customer adoption which is outpacing merchant adoption for the first time. Although we don’t have aggregated comparison data to justify this, we can at least point to the most recent Coinbase results that are impressive in terms of the numbers of users and digital wallets; and to the “color” we crowdsource from our network.

Bitcoin, behaved very much like conventional assets traded in centralized exchanges, this weekend.

Bitcoin, the P2P digital asset which is settled in a decentralized way, experienced a flash crash following the announcement of the rejection. More importantly, the bid/ask spread widened substantially ($35-$60); the volume dropped and then surged ($17bil-$20bil); the price discrepancies between exchanges were large ($50-$100); and the intraday high-low was very wide ($50-$170).

 

Source: CoinDesk BPI exchange

Disclosure: I had sold my Bitcoins before this weekend (with an 80% profit) and managed to re-open a small position at $1,100 (moved into cold storage, to be forgotten).

If you prefer a professional fund manager, making the decisions on your behalf, for your digital currency allocation, there are two alternatives that I can suggest for your review.

Hedgeable, the next gen robo, has incorporated Bitcoin in its asset allocation via a partnership with Coinbase (who provides the digital wallets and cold storage needed). Hedgeable views Bitcoin as an alternative asset, like a currency, in determining the optimal allocation for each client.

ArkInvest, the US based fintech creating thematic fully transparent ETFs, is the first fund manager to invest in bitcoin in its ETF, ARK Web x.0 ETF (NYSEARCA: ARKW). ARK has made its investment through the purchase of OTC publicly traded shares of Grayscale’s Bitcoin Investment Trust (OTCQX: GBTC).

Capital Markets processes are dysfunctional

In a nutshell, the SEC after 4yrs and 6 amendments, rejected the Bitcoin ETF on the basis that they can’t allow an unregulated asset (that is not physical), to be wrapped in an ETF wrapper. As if soybeans, and pork bellies that trade through futures are regulated and cant be “hacked” by weather conditions or viruses.

I cannot but reiterate Ian Goldin’s mantra

“Today is the slowest day of the rest of your (our life)”

Over the next year, there be more digital currencies issued than in the last 4yrs (even if there are no more than half a dozen that gain significant traction). Isn’t this actually how the ETF market has emerged, i.e. a few really large ETFs?

There will be more ICOs listed (albeit small size), than in the last 4yrs. There will probably be an OTC trust publically trading, linked to a basket of digital currencies (e.g. Bitcoin, Ether, Dash, Ripple, ect) out of Europe (not the US).

Looking at the SEC’s archaic process of inviting commentary from the people, a kind of hearing process, around the Bitcoin ETF; I italicized the SEC questions below:

1. The proposed fund, if approved, would be the first exchange-traded product available on U.S. markets to hold a digital asset such as bitcoins, which have neither a physical form (unlike commodities) nor an issuer that is currently registered with any regulatory body (unlike securities, futures, or derivatives), and whose fundamental properties and ownership can, by coordination among a majority of its network processing power, be changed (unlike any of the above). Moreover, as the Exchange acknowledges in its proposal, less than three years ago, the bitcoin exchange then responsible for nearly three-quarters of worldwide bitcoin trading lost a substantial amount of its bitcoin holdings through computer hacking or fraud and failed.57 What are commenters’ views about the current stability, resilience, fairness, and efficiency of the markets on which bitcoina are traded? What are commenters’ views on whether an asset with the novel and unique properties of a bitcoin is an appropriate underlying asset for a product that will be traded on a national securities exchange? What are commenters’ views on the risk of loss via 56 57 See supra note 3. See Notice, supra note 3, at 25 n.19. 12 computer hacking posed by such an asset? What are commenters’ views on whether an ETP based on such an asset would be susceptible to manipulation?
2. According to the Exchange, the Gemini Exchange Spot Price is representative of the accurate price of a bitcoin because of the positive price-discovery attributes of the Gemini Exchange marketplace. What are commenters’ views on the manner in which the Trust proposes to value its holdings?
3. According to the Exchange, the Gemini Exchange is a Digital Asset exchange owned and operated by the Custodian and is an affiliate of the Sponsor. What are commenters’ views regarding whether any potential conflict of interest or other issue might arise due to the relationship between entities such as the Sponsor, the Custodian, and the Gemini Exchange?
4. According to several commenters, there is a need for the Exchange to provide additional information regarding “proof of control” auditing, multisig protocols, and insurance with respect to the bitcoins held in custody on behalf of the Trust, in the interest of adequate security and investor confidence in bitcoin control. What are commenters’ views on these recommendations regarding additional security, control, and insurance measures?
5. A commenter notes that the Gemini Exchange has relatively low liquidity and trading volume in bitcoins and that there is a significant risk that the nominal ETP share price “will be manipulated, by relatively small trades that manipulate the bitcoin price at that exchange.”58 What are commenters’ views on the concerns expressed by this commenter? What are commenters’ views regarding the susceptibility of the price of the Shares to manipulation, considering that the NAV would be based on the spot price of a single bitcoin exchange? What 58 See Stolfi Letter, supra note 4. 13 are commenters’ views generally with respect to the liquidity and transparency of the bitcoin market, and thus the suitability of bitcoins as an underlying asset for an ETP?
6. The Exchange asserts that the widespread availability of information regarding Bitcoin, the Trust, and the Shares, combined with the ability of Authorized Participants to create and redeem Baskets each Business Day, thereby utilizing the arbitrage mechanism, will be sufficient for market participants to value and trade the Shares in a manner that will not lead to significant deviations between intraday Best Bid/Best Ask and the Intraday Indicative Value or between the Best Bid/Best Ask and the NAV. In addition, the Exchange asserts that the numerous options for buying and selling bitcoins will both provide Authorized Participants with many options for hedging their positions and provide market participants generally with potential arbitrage opportunities, further strengthening the arbitrage mechanism as it relates to the Shares. What are commenters’ views regarding these statements? Do commenters’ agree or disagree with the assertion that Authorized Participants and other market makers will be able to make efficient and liquid markets in the Shares at prices generally in line with the NAV? What are commenters’ views on whether the relationship between the Gemini Exchange and the Trust’s Sponsor and Custodian might affect the arbitrage mechanism?Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or · Send an e-mail torule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-BatsBZX- 2016-30 on the subject line. 14 Paper comments: · Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

Who actually sent commentary to the very important and well posed issues raised by the SEC? The SEC publicizes this data with names and responses (click here). The list shows very few business affiliations and is really short given the issue at stake. It does include the Bitcoin critic, Jorge Stolfi, Full Professor/Professor Titular, Instituto de Computação/Institute of Computing, UNICAMP, university professor; the Bitcoin proponent –fund manager Chris Burniske, Blockchain Products Lead, ARK Investment Management LLC; Kyle Murray, Assistant General Counsel, Bats Global Markets (the exchange to be listed); and a few more.

Crowdsourcing information, filtering the relevant data, ranking and weighing it by “reputation”, is what should be done by the SEC.

Such Capital markets processes cannot be left anymore to forums that include ranking algorithms of their communities members, to select the “best conversations” (for example, thread on Reddit). Fintech innovation is still very scattered. Sentiment analysis fintechs (e.g. Sentifi), crowdsourced scientific research (e.g. Stanford Daemo), and applying machine learning; are floating out there and need to be incorporated in the decision making processes in capital markets.

This is the kind of micro-services that the SEC can implement in their digitization process. ArkInvest is already using an innovative process in their own research Open Research Ecosystem. The Innovation Ecosystem brings cross-industry innovation leaders together to design and invent their innovation journeys.

Source: ArkInvest

The SEC needs to replace its old-fashioned invitation for comments process, to one that uses technology to make the research process meaningful (not simply procedural, a tick in the to-do-list), efficient, and value added.

 

Daily Fintech Advisers provides strategic consulting to organizations with business and investment interests in Fintech & operates the Fintech Genome P2P Knowledge Network. Efi Pylarinou is a Digital Wealth Management thought leader.