The SEC approved an Ethereum ETF through delegated authority, a decision that could have major implications for the cryptocurrency market. Unlike the Bitcoin ETF approval in January, which required an SEC vote, this approval did not go through a public voting process by the commissioners. This method of approval, as James Seyffart notes, means commissioners like Crenshaw don’t change the decision, but can request a review.
The lack of a public vote raised questions about political power within the SEC. Seyffart emphasizes that delegated powers are the norm for many decisions, but in this case, the lack of transparency leaves room for speculation about commissioners’ positions. According to Seyffart, the lack of detailed voting records obscures the political lines drawn during the approval process.
Gabriel Shapiro of MetaLeX commented on the procedural nuances, noting that only 19b-4 was approved and not S-1, and that this technical difference explains why no significant price increase in Ethereum occurred following the news, and could still be rejected. suggested.
This community confusion prompted Bloomberg ETF expert Eric Balchunas to confirm that the approval process is standard and “won’t be challenged in any meaningful way.” Balchunas reiterated that the approval was final but that the procedural methods used were typical for the SEC. He suggested that the muted market reaction, especially after the big news broke earlier this week, was because approval was expected.
Approval of the Ethereum ETF signals a potentially positive outlook for future cryptocurrency ETF applications. But the SEC’s delegated authority process has sparked discussion about the need for greater transparency at the SEC and the potential political influence behind such decisions.
Mentioned in this article
news desk
CryptoSlate is a comprehensive and contextual source for cryptocurrency news, insights and data. Focuses on Bitcoin, Macro, DeFi, and AI.