The cryptocurrency industry marked a significant milestone with the approval of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the United States, generating widespread celebration. However, the decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has faced criticism from dissenting voices.
In a statement released on January 10, SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, one of the two commissioners who opposed the approval, expressed concerns about the agency’s decision, describing it as “unsound and ahistorical.”
Crenshaw highlighted apprehensions about the potential impact of these investment products on the market, expressing worry that they could flood the markets and pose risks to the retirement accounts of U.S. households, especially those least able to afford losses due to potential fraud and manipulation prevalent in the spot BTC markets and its subsequent impact on the Exchange-Traded Products (ETPs).
“The global spot markets underlying the Bitcoin ETPs are marred by fraud and manipulation, concentrated, and without adequate oversight.”
Nonprofit Economic Organization, Better Markets, Criticizes Bitcoin ETF Approval
Better Markets, a nonprofit economic organization, did not hold back in expressing its criticism of the recent decision to approve BTC exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The organization labeled the digital asset as intrinsically worthless and lacking purpose.
In a post to X on January 10, Better Markets criticized the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) decision, asserting that the approval did not alter the nature of what it deemed a “worthless financial product.”
The organization maintained its stance that BTC and cryptocurrencies still lack legitimate use, remaining attractive primarily to speculators, gamblers, predators, and criminals. The post emphasized ongoing concerns about fraud, manipulation, and criminal activities associated with the crypto markets.
CEO Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets had previously penned a letter to the SEC five days prior, urging the regulatory body to reject Bitcoin ETF applications. Kelleher argued that these products would likely result in significant harm to investors.
Renowned crypto skeptic Stephen Diehl also shared his perspective on Bitcoin shortly after the approval, characterizing the cryptocurrency as emblematic of “serfdom, stagnation, and subjugation to the tyranny of the discredited ideas from the middle ages.” Diehl favored fiat currencies over Bitcoin.
Adding to the dissenting voices, gold advocate and Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff remarked that the approvals merely provided new avenues for speculators to gamble on Bitcoin. Schiff expressed disappointment in Bitcoin’s lack of real-world utility compared to gold.
Interestingly, even within the cryptocurrency community, there were individuals disappointed with the approvals. Crypto researcher and decentralization advocate Chris Blec argued that the introduction of institution-driven ETFs could jeopardize the decentralized essence of the Bitcoin network over the long term.