SEC's Historic Bitcoin ETF Approval Reveals Deep Divide Within Commission

As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) breaks a decade-long impasse by approving the listing and trading of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs), the decision is met with mixed reactions within the commission.

The landmark decision laid bare a deep fault line between commissioners, their starkly contrasting statements echoing across the financial landscape.

Hester Peirce, the SEC's crypto champion, dubbed the day a "monumental victory for investor choice."

She criticized the SEC's past rejection of Bitcoin BTC/USD applications as "arbitrary and capricious," a relic of a bygone era.

While conceding concerns about fraud and manipulation in the underlying spot market, Peirce pointed out the tight correlation with the regulated CME Bitcoin futures market, deeming it sufficient to guard against nefarious actors.

Also Read: Solana Winter Coming? Whale Traders Target This Range For 'Great Entries For The Long Run'

Meanwhile, Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw expressed strong reservations about the recent approval of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETP). In her statement, Crenshaw highlighted concerns about "rampant fraud and manipulation" in the global spot market.

She emphasized the issues of lack of oversight, concentrated ownership, and prevalent wash trading in the cryptocurrency market. Crenshaw criticized the ETP rule changes as insufficient for basic investor protection standards, suggesting that the SEC's approval might be a risky move akin to "betting the bank" on an unstable foundation.

Beyond financial risks, Crenshaw also raised alarms about national security and the potential for Bitcoin to facilitate criminal activities and evade U.S. sanctions. She questioned whether the unregulated nature of the crypto market could pose threats to the stability of traditional finance.

This clash of views between commissioners like Peirce and Crenshaw reflects a deeper divide over the nature of Bitcoin. The debate centers on whether Bitcoin represents a transformative financial asset or a dangerous element that could disrupt market stability and enable criminal activities.

The SEC's decision, born out of this internal conflict, has intensified the ongoing debate about Bitcoin's role and impact. The key question now is how this decision will be judged in the long run, and which perspective will be validated by history.

Read Next: SEC Who? Ripple Spits Fire, Buys Back $285M In Shares After Legal Win

Photo: Shutterstock