关于比特币商品信托股票和信托单位上市交易综合批准令的声明 美国证监委委员Hester M. Peirce （加密妈妈） 2024年1月10号
4 views
Skip to first unread message
misrepresented arguments
Jan 10, 2024, 9:56:31 PM1/10/24
to QUSAR 【抗量子计算机破解的数字签名算法研究小组】
https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023
关于比特币商品信托股票和信托单位上市交易综合批准令的声明 美国证监委委员Hester M. Peirce （加密妈妈） 2024年1月10号
发布！牛叉的比特币现货，发布出去！[1]： https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023
今天标志着一个不必要但却意义重大的传奇故事的结束。在第一个现货比特币交易所交易产品ETP申请提交十多年后，委员会终于批准了多家交易所允许现货比特币ETP上市和交易的申请。如果没有 DC Circuit-ex-machina[2]的那件案子，这一传奇案子很可能会持续十年之久。你甚至不需要是一名经验丰富的证券律师，就能发现比特币相关ETP申请，与过去十年中常规提交和批准的许多的其他ETP申请，在待遇上有什么不同。ETP 是一项重要的创新。通过ETP，投资者可以在一个便捷的工具中获得证券和非证券（如贵金属）的风险敞口。即使投资者可以在其他地方直接购买，ETP结构也有其自身的优势。ETP股票在各国证券交易所按市价持续交易，就像普通股票一样。机构交易者（称为授权参与者）通过创建和赎回基金份额，帮助维持这些份额的价格与投资池中资产的价格一致。ETPs 向投资者开放，并在联邦证券法的框架内运作。
自从六年前我成为证监委的专员以来，我最常被问到的问题之一就是："委员会什么时候会批准现货比特币ETP？[3]预测现货比特币ETP批准时间表是不可能的，因为这些申请审查过程并不像批准可比ETP的相当简单的过程。随着委员会在一个又一个申请上打上 "驳回 "的标签，被批准的最终目标也在不断向前被推动接近。基于比特币的产品已在其他监管制度下交易多年。例如2017年受商品期货交易委员会监管的CME和CBOE上市了比特币期货。即使在市场紧张和波动的情况下，委员会也本应从这些产品的成功推出和顺利交易中得到安慰。相反直到今天，委员会仍然坚定地不愿意让现货比特币ETP进入美国市场。
5] 例如，散户投资者可以通过非交易所交易产品持有比特币，或者通过购买拥有或开采比特币的公司或基金来获得一些比特币。2021 年，根据《1940 年法案》注册的比特币期货交易所交易基金（"ETF"）开始交易，因为委员会没有阻止它们的法律依据。2022 年，委员会批准了根据《1933 年法案》注册的比特币期货 ETP 交易。与现货产品相比，这些基于期货的产品更加复杂，管理难度更大，这可能会给投资者带来更高的成本。无论如何，委员会允许这些产品交易的依据本应该是允许现货产品交易的同样令人信服的依据：比特币期货价格和现货价格之间的相关性很高，这意味着受监管的期货市场对于基于比特币现货的产品和投资于比特币期货的基金一样具有相关性。但是，直到一家法院提醒我们，"对现货市场和期货市场之间明显的金融和数学关系不加解释地打折扣，不符合合理决策的标准"，[6] 我们还是坚持拒绝了现货比特币 ETP。
委员会非但没有承认错误，反而对其改变主意做出了无力的解释。过去，委员会碍于对相关资产的偏见，以比特币市场尚不成熟、操纵问题突出为由，拒绝了相关申请。今天的批准令指出，委员会现在认为 "防止欺诈和操纵 "的手段已经得到证明，因为在过去的两年半时间里，CME比特币期货市场和比特币现货市场的价格一直高度相关。自我们上次拒绝类似申请以来，唯一的重大变化是遭到了司法谴责。我们浪费了十年的工作机会。如果我们采用对其他基于商品的 ETPs 采用的标准，我们几年前就可以批准这些产品，但我们拒绝这样做，直到法院向我们发出警告。即使是现在，我们的批准也是勉强通过的，[8] 这表现在我们继续坚持要求这些产品满足我们以前对基于商品的 ETPs 未曾要求过的相关性测试。[9] 也许这里的一线希望是，现在我们知道委员会可以执行稳健的相关性分析，也许批准其他现货加密 ETPs 的道路就不会那么崎岖不平了（即使委员会坚持继续采用它在其他任何地方都不适用的测试）。
今天的命令并不能消除对现货比特币产品的区别对待所造成的诸多危害。首先，我们对该领域申请的武断和任性处理将继续损害我们的声誉，其影响远远超出加密货币领域。公众信任度的降低将抑制我们有效监管市场的能力。这一事件将玷污行业与我们员工之间未来的互动，并将削弱丰富、翔实的对话，而这种对话是保护投资者的最佳方式；其次，我们对这些申报的过度关注分散了有限的人力资源，使其无法从事其他关键任务。十年来，工作人员可能花费了数百万美元的时间来阻止这些申请；第三，我们在这里的行动混淆了人们对证券交易委员会作用的理解。国会并未授权我们告诉人们某项投资是否适合他们，但我们却滥用行政程序，不向公众公开我们不喜欢的投资；第四，在考虑现货比特币 ETPs 时，我们没有遵循正常的标准和流程，人为地制造了一种狂热。如果这些产品能够像其他可比产品一样进入市场，我们就可以避免现在这种马戏团式的气氛；第五，我们已经疏远了我们领域内的一代产品创新者。我们对这些申请的不合理态度表明，监管部门对新产品和新服务的偏见会导致我们规避法律，不合理地推迟产品上市。业界已经召开了数百次会议，提交了意见书、撤回书和修正案，最终不得不诉诸代价高昂的法律斗争，才使我们走到了今天。
虽然这是一个反思的时刻，但也是一个庆祝的时刻。我并不是在庆祝比特币或与比特币相关的产品；监管机构对比特币的看法并不重要。我庆祝的是美国投资者有权通过买卖现货比特币 ETPs 来表达他们对比特币的看法。[10] 我庆祝的是市场参与者坚持不懈地努力将他们认为投资者需要的产品推向市场。面对委员会的阻挠，我对申请人长达十年的坚持表示赞赏。
发布！牛叉的比特币现货，发布出去！[1]： https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023
今天标志着一个不必要但却意义重大的传奇故事的结束。在第一个现货比特币交易所交易产品ETP申请提交十多年后，委员会终于批准了多家交易所允许现货比特币ETP上市和交易的申请。如果没有 DC Circuit-ex-machina[2]的那件案子，这一传奇案子很可能会持续十年之久。你甚至不需要是一名经验丰富的证券律师，就能发现比特币相关ETP申请，与过去十年中常规提交和批准的许多的其他ETP申请，在待遇上有什么不同。ETP 是一项重要的创新。通过ETP，投资者可以在一个便捷的工具中获得证券和非证券（如贵金属）的风险敞口。即使投资者可以在其他地方直接购买，ETP结构也有其自身的优势。ETP股票在各国证券交易所按市价持续交易，就像普通股票一样。机构交易者（称为授权参与者）通过创建和赎回基金份额，帮助维持这些份额的价格与投资池中资产的价格一致。ETPs 向投资者开放，并在联邦证券法的框架内运作。
自从六年前我成为证监委的专员以来，我最常被问到的问题之一就是："委员会什么时候会批准现货比特币ETP？[3]预测现货比特币ETP批准时间表是不可能的，因为这些申请审查过程并不像批准可比ETP的相当简单的过程。随着委员会在一个又一个申请上打上 "驳回 "的标签，被批准的最终目标也在不断向前被推动接近。基于比特币的产品已在其他监管制度下交易多年。例如2017年受商品期货交易委员会监管的CME和CBOE上市了比特币期货。即使在市场紧张和波动的情况下，委员会也本应从这些产品的成功推出和顺利交易中得到安慰。相反直到今天，委员会仍然坚定地不愿意让现货比特币ETP进入美国市场。
5] 例如，散户投资者可以通过非交易所交易产品持有比特币，或者通过购买拥有或开采比特币的公司或基金来获得一些比特币。2021 年，根据《1940 年法案》注册的比特币期货交易所交易基金（"ETF"）开始交易，因为委员会没有阻止它们的法律依据。2022 年，委员会批准了根据《1933 年法案》注册的比特币期货 ETP 交易。与现货产品相比，这些基于期货的产品更加复杂，管理难度更大，这可能会给投资者带来更高的成本。无论如何，委员会允许这些产品交易的依据本应该是允许现货产品交易的同样令人信服的依据：比特币期货价格和现货价格之间的相关性很高，这意味着受监管的期货市场对于基于比特币现货的产品和投资于比特币期货的基金一样具有相关性。但是，直到一家法院提醒我们，"对现货市场和期货市场之间明显的金融和数学关系不加解释地打折扣，不符合合理决策的标准"，[6] 我们还是坚持拒绝了现货比特币 ETP。
委员会非但没有承认错误，反而对其改变主意做出了无力的解释。过去，委员会碍于对相关资产的偏见，以比特币市场尚不成熟、操纵问题突出为由，拒绝了相关申请。今天的批准令指出，委员会现在认为 "防止欺诈和操纵 "的手段已经得到证明，因为在过去的两年半时间里，CME比特币期货市场和比特币现货市场的价格一直高度相关。自我们上次拒绝类似申请以来，唯一的重大变化是遭到了司法谴责。我们浪费了十年的工作机会。如果我们采用对其他基于商品的 ETPs 采用的标准，我们几年前就可以批准这些产品，但我们拒绝这样做，直到法院向我们发出警告。即使是现在，我们的批准也是勉强通过的，[8] 这表现在我们继续坚持要求这些产品满足我们以前对基于商品的 ETPs 未曾要求过的相关性测试。[9] 也许这里的一线希望是，现在我们知道委员会可以执行稳健的相关性分析，也许批准其他现货加密 ETPs 的道路就不会那么崎岖不平了（即使委员会坚持继续采用它在其他任何地方都不适用的测试）。
今天的命令并不能消除对现货比特币产品的区别对待所造成的诸多危害。首先，我们对该领域申请的武断和任性处理将继续损害我们的声誉，其影响远远超出加密货币领域。公众信任度的降低将抑制我们有效监管市场的能力。这一事件将玷污行业与我们员工之间未来的互动，并将削弱丰富、翔实的对话，而这种对话是保护投资者的最佳方式；其次，我们对这些申报的过度关注分散了有限的人力资源，使其无法从事其他关键任务。十年来，工作人员可能花费了数百万美元的时间来阻止这些申请；第三，我们在这里的行动混淆了人们对证券交易委员会作用的理解。国会并未授权我们告诉人们某项投资是否适合他们，但我们却滥用行政程序，不向公众公开我们不喜欢的投资；第四，在考虑现货比特币 ETPs 时，我们没有遵循正常的标准和流程，人为地制造了一种狂热。如果这些产品能够像其他可比产品一样进入市场，我们就可以避免现在这种马戏团式的气氛；第五，我们已经疏远了我们领域内的一代产品创新者。我们对这些申请的不合理态度表明，监管部门对新产品和新服务的偏见会导致我们规避法律，不合理地推迟产品上市。业界已经召开了数百次会议，提交了意见书、撤回书和修正案，最终不得不诉诸代价高昂的法律斗争，才使我们走到了今天。
虽然这是一个反思的时刻，但也是一个庆祝的时刻。我并不是在庆祝比特币或与比特币相关的产品；监管机构对比特币的看法并不重要。我庆祝的是美国投资者有权通过买卖现货比特币 ETPs 来表达他们对比特币的看法。[10] 我庆祝的是市场参与者坚持不懈地努力将他们认为投资者需要的产品推向市场。面对委员会的阻挠，我对申请人长达十年的坚持表示赞赏。
Statement
Out, Damned Spot! Out, I Say![1]: Statement on Omnibus Approval Order for List and Trade Bitcoin-Based Commodity-Based Trust Shares and Trust Units
Hester Peirce
Commissioner Hester M. Peirce
Jan. 10, 2024
Today marks the end of an unnecessary, but consequential, saga. More than ten years after the filing of the first spot bitcoin exchange-traded product (“ETP”) application, the Commission finally has approved multiple applications by exchanges to allow the listing and trading of spot bitcoin ETPs. This saga likely would have spanned well beyond a decade were it not for the DC Circuit-ex-machina.[2] You need not be a seasoned securities lawyer to spot the difference in treatment of bitcoin-related ETP applications compared to the many other ETP applications that have been routinely filed and approved over the past decade.
ETPs are an important innovation. Through them, investors can gain exposure to securities and non-securities, such as precious metals, in a convenient vehicle. Even if that exposure is available directly elsewhere, the ETP structure offers its own advantages. ETP shares trade continually on national stock exchanges at market prices, much as regular stocks do. By creating and redeeming shares of the fund, institutional traders, called authorized participants, help to maintain the price of these shares in line with the price of the assets in the investment pool. ETPs are accessible to investors and operate within the framework of the federal securities laws.
Since I became a Commissioner six years ago, one of the questions I have been asked most frequently is “When will the Commission approve a spot bitcoin ETP?” For reasons I have explained many times before, the logic of the long string of denials is perplexing.[3] Predicting approval timelines for spot bitcoin ETPs was impossible because the review process for these filings did not resemble the fairly straightforward processes for approving comparable ETPs. The goalposts kept moving as the Commission slapped “DENIED” on application after application.
Bitcoin-based products have been trading for years under other regulatory regimes. In 2017, for example, the CME and the CBOE, which are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, listed bitcoin futures.[4] Foreign jurisdictions have long allowed spot bitcoin ETPs to trade. The Commission should have drawn comfort from the successful launch and smooth trading of these products, even through market stress and volatility. Instead, until today, the Commission remained steadfast in its unwillingness to let spot bitcoin ETPs into US markets.
In the meantime, the Commission has driven retail investors to less efficient means of attaining bitcoin exposure in the securities markets.[5] For example, retail investors could hold it through non-exchange traded products or get some exposure by buying into companies or funds that owned or mined bitcoin. And, in 2021, bitcoin futures exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), registered under the 1940 Act, started to trade given the Commission had no legal basis for stopping them. In 2022, the Commission approved the trading of bitcoin futures ETPs registered under the 1933 Act. These futures-based products are more complex and more difficult to manage than the spot product, which can translate into higher costs for investors. In any case, the Commission’s basis for letting these products trade should have been an equally compelling basis for letting spot products trade: the correlation between the bitcoin futures prices and the spot prices is high, which means that the regulated futures market is as relevant for a product based on spot bitcoin as it is for a fund investing in bitcoin futures. But, until a court reminded us that our “unexplained discounting of the obvious financial and mathematical relationship between the spot and futures markets falls short of the standard for reasoned decisionmaking,”[6] we persisted in denying a spot bitcoin ETP.
The Commission, rather than admitting error, offers a weak explanation for its change of heart. In the past, the Commission, allowing our prejudice against the underlying asset to get in the way, has rejected applications on the basis that the bitcoin market was still immature and that there were outstanding manipulation concerns. Today’s approval order notes that the Commission now finds that means for “preventing fraud and manipulation” have been demonstrated because the prices on the CME bitcoin futures market and the spot bitcoin markets have been highly correlated throughout the past two-and-a-half years.[7] We have denied multiple applications over that period, depriving investors of the opportunity to gain exposure to bitcoin in a more convenient and investor-friendly way. The only material change since we last denied a similar application was a judicial rebuke.
We squandered a decade of opportunities to do our job. If we had applied the standard we use for other commodity-based ETPs, we could have approved these products years ago, but we refused to do so until a court called our bluff. And even now our approval comes only begrudgingly,[8] as demonstrated by our continued insistence that these products satisfy a correlation test we have not demanded of prior commodity-based ETPs.[9] Perhaps the one silver lining here is now that we know that the Commission can execute a robust correlation analysis, perhaps the road to approving other spot crypto ETPs will not be as bumpy (even if the Commission insists on continuing to apply a test it applies nowhere else).
Today’s order does not undo the many harms created by the disparate treatment of spot bitcoin products.
First, our arbitrary and capricious treatment of applications in this area will continue to harm our reputation far beyond crypto. Diminished trust from the public will inhibit our ability to regulate the markets effectively. This saga will taint future interactions between the industry and our staff and will dampen the rich, informative dialogue that best protects investors.
Second, our disproportionate attention on these filings has diverted limited staff resources away from other mission critical work. Over ten years, likely millions of dollars of staff time has gone toward blocking these applications.
Third, our actions here have muddied people’s understanding of what the SEC’s role is. Congress did not authorize us to tell people whether a particular investment is right for them, but we have abused administrative procedures to withhold investments that we do not like from the public.
Fourth, by failing to follow our normal standards and processes in considering spot bitcoin ETPs, we have created an artificial frenzy around them. Had these products come to market in the way other comparable products typically have, we would have avoided the circus atmosphere in which we now find ourselves.
Fifth, we have alienated a generation of product innovators within our space. Our unreasonable approach to these applications has signaled that regulatory prejudice against new products and services can lead us to sidestep the law and unreasonably delay product launches. The industry has logged hundreds of meetings, has filed submissions, withdrawals and amendments, and ultimately had to resort to a costly legal battle to get us to today.
Although this is a time for reflection, it is also a time for celebration. I am not celebrating bitcoin or bitcoin-related products; what one regulator thinks about bitcoin is irrelevant. I am celebrating the right of American investors to express their thoughts on bitcoin by buying and selling spot bitcoin ETPs.[10] And I am celebrating the perseverance of market participants in trying to bring to market a product they think investors want. I commend applicants’ decade-long persistence in the face of the Commission’s obstruction.
Out, Damned Spot! Out, I Say![1]: Statement on Omnibus Approval Order for List and Trade Bitcoin-Based Commodity-Based Trust Shares and Trust Units
Hester Peirce
Commissioner Hester M. Peirce
Jan. 10, 2024
Today marks the end of an unnecessary, but consequential, saga. More than ten years after the filing of the first spot bitcoin exchange-traded product (“ETP”) application, the Commission finally has approved multiple applications by exchanges to allow the listing and trading of spot bitcoin ETPs. This saga likely would have spanned well beyond a decade were it not for the DC Circuit-ex-machina.[2] You need not be a seasoned securities lawyer to spot the difference in treatment of bitcoin-related ETP applications compared to the many other ETP applications that have been routinely filed and approved over the past decade.
ETPs are an important innovation. Through them, investors can gain exposure to securities and non-securities, such as precious metals, in a convenient vehicle. Even if that exposure is available directly elsewhere, the ETP structure offers its own advantages. ETP shares trade continually on national stock exchanges at market prices, much as regular stocks do. By creating and redeeming shares of the fund, institutional traders, called authorized participants, help to maintain the price of these shares in line with the price of the assets in the investment pool. ETPs are accessible to investors and operate within the framework of the federal securities laws.
Since I became a Commissioner six years ago, one of the questions I have been asked most frequently is “When will the Commission approve a spot bitcoin ETP?” For reasons I have explained many times before, the logic of the long string of denials is perplexing.[3] Predicting approval timelines for spot bitcoin ETPs was impossible because the review process for these filings did not resemble the fairly straightforward processes for approving comparable ETPs. The goalposts kept moving as the Commission slapped “DENIED” on application after application.
Bitcoin-based products have been trading for years under other regulatory regimes. In 2017, for example, the CME and the CBOE, which are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, listed bitcoin futures.[4] Foreign jurisdictions have long allowed spot bitcoin ETPs to trade. The Commission should have drawn comfort from the successful launch and smooth trading of these products, even through market stress and volatility. Instead, until today, the Commission remained steadfast in its unwillingness to let spot bitcoin ETPs into US markets.
In the meantime, the Commission has driven retail investors to less efficient means of attaining bitcoin exposure in the securities markets.[5] For example, retail investors could hold it through non-exchange traded products or get some exposure by buying into companies or funds that owned or mined bitcoin. And, in 2021, bitcoin futures exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), registered under the 1940 Act, started to trade given the Commission had no legal basis for stopping them. In 2022, the Commission approved the trading of bitcoin futures ETPs registered under the 1933 Act. These futures-based products are more complex and more difficult to manage than the spot product, which can translate into higher costs for investors. In any case, the Commission’s basis for letting these products trade should have been an equally compelling basis for letting spot products trade: the correlation between the bitcoin futures prices and the spot prices is high, which means that the regulated futures market is as relevant for a product based on spot bitcoin as it is for a fund investing in bitcoin futures. But, until a court reminded us that our “unexplained discounting of the obvious financial and mathematical relationship between the spot and futures markets falls short of the standard for reasoned decisionmaking,”[6] we persisted in denying a spot bitcoin ETP.
The Commission, rather than admitting error, offers a weak explanation for its change of heart. In the past, the Commission, allowing our prejudice against the underlying asset to get in the way, has rejected applications on the basis that the bitcoin market was still immature and that there were outstanding manipulation concerns. Today’s approval order notes that the Commission now finds that means for “preventing fraud and manipulation” have been demonstrated because the prices on the CME bitcoin futures market and the spot bitcoin markets have been highly correlated throughout the past two-and-a-half years.[7] We have denied multiple applications over that period, depriving investors of the opportunity to gain exposure to bitcoin in a more convenient and investor-friendly way. The only material change since we last denied a similar application was a judicial rebuke.
We squandered a decade of opportunities to do our job. If we had applied the standard we use for other commodity-based ETPs, we could have approved these products years ago, but we refused to do so until a court called our bluff. And even now our approval comes only begrudgingly,[8] as demonstrated by our continued insistence that these products satisfy a correlation test we have not demanded of prior commodity-based ETPs.[9] Perhaps the one silver lining here is now that we know that the Commission can execute a robust correlation analysis, perhaps the road to approving other spot crypto ETPs will not be as bumpy (even if the Commission insists on continuing to apply a test it applies nowhere else).
Today’s order does not undo the many harms created by the disparate treatment of spot bitcoin products.
First, our arbitrary and capricious treatment of applications in this area will continue to harm our reputation far beyond crypto. Diminished trust from the public will inhibit our ability to regulate the markets effectively. This saga will taint future interactions between the industry and our staff and will dampen the rich, informative dialogue that best protects investors.
Second, our disproportionate attention on these filings has diverted limited staff resources away from other mission critical work. Over ten years, likely millions of dollars of staff time has gone toward blocking these applications.
Third, our actions here have muddied people’s understanding of what the SEC’s role is. Congress did not authorize us to tell people whether a particular investment is right for them, but we have abused administrative procedures to withhold investments that we do not like from the public.
Fourth, by failing to follow our normal standards and processes in considering spot bitcoin ETPs, we have created an artificial frenzy around them. Had these products come to market in the way other comparable products typically have, we would have avoided the circus atmosphere in which we now find ourselves.
Fifth, we have alienated a generation of product innovators within our space. Our unreasonable approach to these applications has signaled that regulatory prejudice against new products and services can lead us to sidestep the law and unreasonably delay product launches. The industry has logged hundreds of meetings, has filed submissions, withdrawals and amendments, and ultimately had to resort to a costly legal battle to get us to today.
Although this is a time for reflection, it is also a time for celebration. I am not celebrating bitcoin or bitcoin-related products; what one regulator thinks about bitcoin is irrelevant. I am celebrating the right of American investors to express their thoughts on bitcoin by buying and selling spot bitcoin ETPs.[10] And I am celebrating the perseverance of market participants in trying to bring to market a product they think investors want. I commend applicants’ decade-long persistence in the face of the Commission’s obstruction.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages