US Congressmen Tom Emmer and Darren Soto urged the US Securities and Exchange Commission to approve the launch of direct cryptocurrency ETFs, considering it logical after the approval of ETFs for Bitcoin futures.
Tom Emmer and Darren Soto sent a letter to SEC Chairman Gary Gensler requesting permission to launch Bitcoin-linked ETFs. Congressmen asked the department why last month it opened the way for bitcoin futures ETFs instead of approving spot ETFs right away.
On October 19, ProShares opened access to trading ETF shares for bitcoin futures, and on the very first day, its trading volume exceeded $ 1 billion.A few days later, the second ETF on bitcoin futures by Valkyrie was launched in the United States, but this exchange-traded fund did not receive much attention investors versus a new investment product presented by ProShares.
Emmer and Soto acknowledged that the launch of these exchange-traded funds will be a significant step forward for the millions of American investors looking to access bitcoin. However, congressmen believe that Bitcoin futures ETFs are much more volatile than direct Bitcoin ETFs. In addition, investors may pay higher fees due to the premium that bitcoin futures are usually traded with, as well as due to the fluctuations in value when the futures contracts change.
“The SEC sees nothing wrong with launching ETFs on Bitcoin futures, but at the same time it cannot approve ETFs that are directly tied to Bitcoin. But they are based on an asset that will provide a higher level of protection for investors, ”- stated in the address of the congressmen to the SEC.
Cryptocurrency ETFs are in high demand among investors, so they should have a choice among several investment products and decide which one is best for them personally, congressmen said. Even with the SEC’s concerns about digital asset fraud and manipulation in the cryptocurrency market, congressmen do not understand the actions of the SEC. According to Emmer and Soto, the agency strongly distinguishes between ETFs for Bitcoin futures and ETFs for Bitcoin, although they are interconnected and present the same risks of market manipulation.
Recall that last year, these lawmakers appealed to the IRS with a request not to tax staking fees and proposed to work out its taxation in such a way that it does not interfere with the development of the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) model.
