But what’s the point of Bitcoin then? They might as well put anything in these ETFs and it’d be the same thing then: the flat rocks in my garden are limited in number and very scarce, wanna put some in an etf?
Maybe, but my rocks are better, faster, and more scalable!
Frankly we could probably get our rock ETF's approved more quickly. Regardless of how you feel about Bitcoin, it's not (or shouldn't be) the SEC's place to play nanny and dictate the particular assets/commodities/etc. in which you're allowed to invest your money. Incidentally even one of SEC commissioners agrees https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/peirce-statement-spot-bit...
Well as a matter of fact btc is none of these things compared to any other crypto, which are themselves not particularly any of these things.
But I agree with the fact it’s not the SEC’s role to tell us the merit of btc.
I do have some worries on the Tether scam still going on for example though, which has been manipulating BTC for years.
Bitcoin's value lies in its potential as a secure means of payment for microtransactions and its integration with advanced technologies like the Lightning Network. Its worth is tied to its perceived future utility in various domains, particularly in facilitating transactions over APIs. The recent ETF news contributes to its liquidity and stability, essential for its role in digital transactions. As the technology and applications around Bitcoin continue to evolve, its true value might become more apparent, potentially transforming the landscape of digital commerce and AI interactions.
One bitcoin is very much distinguishable from another bitcoin as they can be traced through transactions and wallets, with the outcome that some bitcoins might be rejected by recipients that are uncomfortable with certain source wallets or mixers.
Yes but you could refuse to deliver whatever the sender is paying for. I mean you need to wait for 6 confirmations or whatever anyway before "approving" the payment transaction.
