TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust

155 点作者 markmassie超过 10 年前

20 条评论

Animats超过 10 年前
This is not a way to &quot;grow Bitcoin&quot;. It&#x27;s a way for a big holder to dump a lot of Bitcoins without, they hope, crashing the market.<p>The terms are awful: <i>&quot;The Shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Administrator, Trust Agency Service Provider and Custodian and the Trust’s lack of insurance protection expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s bitcoins for which no person is liable.&quot;</i><p><i>&quot;The Trust will not insure its bitcoins. The Custodian will maintain insurance with regard to its custodial business on such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate in connection with its custodial obligations and will be responsible for all costs, fees and expenses arising from the insurance policy or policies. The Trust will not be a beneficiary of any such insurance and does not have the ability to dictate the existence, nature or amount of coverage. Therefore, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or any insurance with respect to the bitcoins held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. Further, Shareholders’ recourse against the Trust, Custodian and Sponsor under [New York] law governing their custody operations is limited. Similarly, the Shareholders’ recourse against the Administrator and Trust Agency Service Provider for the services they provide to the Trust, including those relating to the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoins, is limited. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s bitcoins which is not covered by insurance and for which no person is liable in damages.&quot;</i><p>I&#x27;ve never seen terms this unfavorable to shareholders in a prospectus before. They&#x27;re taking on less liability than Mt. Gox took on. If the Bitcoins mysteriously disappear, no one is liable.
评论 #8821530 未加载
评论 #8824267 未加载
ucha超过 10 年前
If the SEC approves it, this would be great news for bitcoin. Assuming the ETF is sufficiently liquid, it would allow:<p>- easy shorting of bitcoins which facilitate price discovery<p>- lower transaction costs. The cheapest and most liquid exchanges still charge .2% per transaction + spread. Most (all?) of them charge you for getting cash in our out of their platform. Buying shares of an ETF would cost just spread + transaction cost charged by your broker which should be much lower (.0035 per share on Interactive Brokers for example)<p>- easy hedging of a real bitcoin position. Let&#x27;s say you hold a large fluctuating position in bitcoin that would like to hedge in USD. You could continuously convert all your BTC to USD or go long&#x2F;short the ETF which is much cheaper.
评论 #8820849 未加载
评论 #8820631 未加载
anigbrowl超过 10 年前
I don&#x27;t think it matters. Per blockchain.info, the volume of Bitcoin transactions is in gradual decline over the last year and seems stuck at about $50m USD&#x2F;day, despite many more merchants offering to accept payment. Market cap is fairly steep decline and hash rate has been leveling off.<p><a href="https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blockchain.info&#x2F;charts&#x2F;estimated-transaction-volume-...</a> <a href="https://blockchain.info/charts/market-cap" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blockchain.info&#x2F;charts&#x2F;market-cap</a> <a href="https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blockchain.info&#x2F;charts&#x2F;hash-rate</a><p>It just struck me that the market cap trend seems to have gone down in very similar fashion tot he price of oil over the last 6 months. If enough people who bought bitcoin did so primarily as a hedge, then you&#x27;d expect it to loosely track a basket of popular commodities like oil and gold (the price of which looks quite similar to Bitcoin&#x27;s market cap over the last year IMHO - <a href="http://goldprice.org/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;goldprice.org&#x2F;</a>). Can&#x27;t wait for Google to get their automatic statistician tool online - I don&#x27;t like statistics well enough to want to use R regularly but I would love a tool that I can use to quickly measure the coupling between different datasets.
评论 #8822031 未加载
murbard2超过 10 年前
It&#x27;s not about the liquidity. It&#x27;s not about shorting. It&#x27;s not about leveraging. It&#x27;s a little bit about ease of investing. It&#x27;s a <i>lot</i> about the fact that once this is available, hordes of brokers can make commissions by recommending their clients buy into this ETF.
minimax超过 10 年前
This is just a new version of the S-1. The SEC still hasn&#x27;t approved the ETF for sale.
dnautics超过 10 年前
By being in the general markets, bitcoin will finally have mass access to leveraged trading. The result will be that bitcoin will finally see a &#x27;true bubble&#x27;. While the bitcoin price has been decreasing, it&#x27;s not really been a bubble as the popping of a bubble is usually twice as fast as its inflation, the opposite of which is true in the current bitcoin decrease.<p>A good resource on the connection between leverage and financial bubbles is Kindleberger&#x27;s &quot;Manias, Panics, and Crashes&quot;
评论 #8821223 未加载
apaprocki超过 10 年前
One thing sticks out as a red flag to me: they invented their own spot index (the Winkdex(R)) to price their NAV and that index includes BTC-e. BTC-e is a widely used site in the Bitcoin world, but no one knows who operates it or exactly where they are located (Bulgaria? Russia?). You would seriously base a large component of your index pricing an SEC regulated instrument on a number coming from unknown individuals who can not sign a contract or accept any liability? When people in the Bitcoin world always wonder &quot;Why did X not include BTC-e?? How incompetent!&quot; they never stop to think that there is no one on the other side that can pick up the pen.
评论 #8820565 未加载
评论 #8820563 未加载
评论 #8820535 未加载
评论 #8821398 未加载
评论 #8820641 未加载
gojomo超过 10 年前
The Winklevosses are most famous for claiming their &#x27;tech guy&#x27; ran off with their billion-dollar secrets.<p>Have they become better at managing secrets and &#x27;tech guys&#x27;? Because that&#x27;s what&#x27;s necessary to safely hold a lot of Bitcoin.
评论 #8822397 未加载
justinireland超过 10 年前
Doesnt the ETF also open the door to institutional funds that are normally restricted to specific assets? Seems to me that is the biggest advantage of a bitcoin ETF as it will open the gates to more capital for bitcoin investments.
评论 #8822314 未加载
ssharp超过 10 年前
Is this the only way to cash out a large amount of BitCoins?
评论 #8821157 未加载
评论 #8820544 未加载
评论 #8820842 未加载
评论 #8820492 未加载
评论 #8822654 未加载
评论 #8822049 未加载
评论 #8820496 未加载
califield超过 10 年前
They&#x27;re going to trade Bitcoin under the NASDAQ symbol COIN. I love it!
评论 #8820829 未加载
bobcostas55超过 10 年前
I think it&#x27;s really sad that Bitcoin trading ended up being so ridiculously expensive to trade that an ETF listed on traditional markets will drop the costs by an order of magnitude.
Kiro超过 10 年前
&gt; In March 2014, it was announced that the twins had purchased seats on Richard Branson&#x27;s Virgin Galactic shuttle using the profits they had made from Bitcoin. [1]<p>I wonder how much bitcoins they own.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winklevoss_twins#Bitcoin" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Winklevoss_twins#Bitcoin</a><p>EDIT: From the top of the article: &quot;In April 2013, the brothers claimed they owned nearly 1% of all Bitcoin in existence at the time.&quot;
评论 #8821334 未加载
jekrb超过 10 年前
If you have access to the dev console I highly recommend setting the max-width of the body to 40em. The text spans all the way across the screen by default.
评论 #8820531 未加载
pnathan超过 10 年前
Interesting. If accepted, I am tempted to buy a few shares and see what falls out over time.
评论 #8820501 未加载
评论 #8820462 未加载
评论 #8820390 未加载
评论 #8820838 未加载
评论 #8820458 未加载
elwell超过 10 年前
&gt; as measured by the Winklevoss IndexSM (“Winkdex®”)
foobarqux超过 10 年前
The real problem with the ETF is that the index used for pricing is not independent.
评论 #8822016 未加载
kumarski超过 10 年前
I wish the SEC website was properly responsive.
benguild超过 10 年前
I still think it&#x27;s funny that these guys clearly just went on HN and read about Bitcoin and randomly invested. Good for them though.
评论 #8820478 未加载
评论 #8822052 未加载
评论 #8820834 未加载
评论 #8820698 未加载
7Figures2Commas超过 10 年前
The Risk Factors section could be tightened up. &quot;Bitcoin lost over half its value in 2014&quot;[1] would probably suffice.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-23/and-2014s-worst-currency-wasbitcoin" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloombergview.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2014-12-23&#x2F;and-2014s-w...</a>
评论 #8820365 未加载