The SEC Is So Sued

That is what happens when you cross the Winklevoss twins.
Author:
Publish date:
Updated on
(Getty Images)

(Getty Images)

In April of 2004, the besuited Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss walked out of Harvard University President Larry Summers’ office empty-handed. Not only did the former Treasury Secretary not give them Facebook, which they earned when Mark Zuckerberg stole the idea for it from them, he also made fun of them and called them a couple of assholes.

It must have seemed, on the spring day in Cambridge, unlikely to the Winklevii that they’d ever feel so low again. Certainly not after four years of work on their planned bitcoin ETF, not with such auguries of successsurrounding the project. And yet, on Friday, they found the SEC no more receptive to their combined 13 feet of charm than was the soon-to-be-disgraced president of their alma mater.

The commission said it was rejecting the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust because the markets where Bitcoin are currently traded are largely unregulated.

The lack of such regulation, the commission said, raised “concerns about the potential for fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices in this market.”

Outside of the Winklevii themselves, however, no one seems to be shedding any tears.

The Bitcoin community doesn’t seem to be bothered by the US Security Exchange Commission’s decision to disapprove the Winklevoss twins’ Bitcoin ETF COIN like many analysts expected. The market’s stability after the denial of the COIN ETF led to discussions on why Bitcoin didn’t need an ETF to begin with.

The rejection by U.S. regulators of their plan for an exchange-traded product holding bitcoin is a good time to ask why bitcoin might have any value, and if it does whether it makes sense to hoard it….

Investors thinking of switching to bitcoin face a lose-lose logic problem. If bitcoins represent an inherently more valuable form of money, they will all be hoarded. Without any spending, bitcoins are worthless. On the other hand, if bitcoins don’t represent a more valuable form of money, why would anyone bother?...

The appeal of bitcoin is almost exclusively as a store of value. That makes no sense.

Of course, whether or not it makes sense or was necessary is beside the point. The point is: Two identically tall, entitled Harvard alums wanted something, and have been told they can’t have it. And when these identically tall, entitled Harvard alums are told they can’t have something they want, it usually produces litigation—never-ending litigation. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

S.E.C. Rejects Winklevoss Brothers’ Bid to Create Bitcoin E.T.F. [DealBook]
Why SEC disapproved the EFT and why Bitcoin didn’t need it [The Cointelegraph]
Let’s Be Real: Bitcoin is a Useless Investment [WSJ]

Related