Market

Dogecoin (DOGE) Creator Breaks Silence on Ethereum ETF

In a recent social media discussion, Dogecoin co-author Billy Markus gave his opinion on the upcoming SEC decision regarding Ethereum-based exchange-traded funds. Responding to a skeptical post about the fate of ETH ETFs, Markus expressed an equally pessimistic stance, implying that the current “compromised” state of the regulator holds little good for potential approval.

Advertisement

This statement from Markus comes amid heightened expectations surrounding Ethereum’s legal position as part of the SEC’s ETF discussions. Financial lawyer Scott Johnsson recently opined that Ethereum’s legal classification will figure prominently in the upcoming ETF decisions. He noted the regulator’s reluctance to approve commodity trust shares for Ethereum, citing concerns about its securities-like nature, something Bitcoin ETFs have not faced.

Current situation for Ethereum ETFs

The imminent decision dates for VanEck and ARK Invest’s applications for Ethereum ETFs, set for May 23 and May 24, respectively, which is already a week away, has intensified speculation in the crypto industry. Despite expectations of a rejection due to Ethereum’s alleged regulatory failure, the exact basis for the SEC’s potential rejection remains unclear.

Markus’s remarks add to the skepticism surrounding the prospects of Ethereum ETFs, reflecting the broader sentiment in the cryptocurrency community regarding regulatory obstacles.

There are still unanswered questions about the extent to which regulatory barriers will prevent the mass adoption of Ethereum and altcoins, and whether there will be alternative investment opportunities. 

There are also ongoing debates about the effectiveness and fairness of the regulatory framework, with supporters arguing for clearer guidelines and opponents criticizing excessive regulatory overreach.

SOURCE

Leave a Comment

NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ NcdeQ