The approval of several spot Bitcoin ETFs by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has sparked a mix of reactions, with some industry observers and critics expressing strong disapproval. SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, who voted against the approval, criticized the decision as “unsound and ahistorical.” She expressed concerns about the potential risks these products pose to U.S. households, especially those who can least afford to lose their savings due to prevalent fraud and manipulation in the spot bitcoin markets.
Better Markets, a nonprofit economic organization, echoed these sentiments, denouncing the asset as inherently worthless and without any legitimate use. The organization highlighted the risks associated with Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, describing them as being favored by speculators, gamblers, and criminals, and rife with fraud and manipulation. In a letter to the SEC, Better Markets CEO Dennis Kelleher urged the agency to reject the Bitcoin ETF applications, warning of probable massive investor harm.
Stephen Diehl, a long-time critic of cryptocurrency, also chimed in with a scathing critique of Bitcoin, condemning its principles as regressive and praising fiat currencies. Gold advocate Peter Schiff, another Bitcoin critic, described the ETF approvals as mere vehicles for speculative gambling, lamenting Bitcoin’s lack of real-world utility compared to gold.
Even within crypto circles, there was disappointment. Chris Blec, a crypto researcher and advocate for decentralization, argued that the introduction of institution-driven ETFs could undermine the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network in the long run. These critiques highlight a deep divide in perceptions of the cryptocurrency’s value and role in the financial system, even as it gains more mainstream acceptance.