SEC to Seek Comment on Another Bitcoin ETF

Watchdog called for comments on a proposal by the Cboe to list and trade the SolidX Bitcoin Shares
28 June 2018   1274

The US Securities and Exchange Commission again wants to receive a comment regarding the potential launch of the bitcoin ETF. This is reported by CoinDesk.

The watchdog is waiting for comments on the offer of the Cboe exchange to list and trade of SolidX Bitcoin Shares, which in turn was proposed by VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust.

ETF will invest exclusively in bitcoin, the document says, as its net assets will "consist of bitcoin held by the Trust utilizing a secure process."

According to Cboe's application, ETF securities will become a tool for investing in bitcoins by players in traditional markets. While operators will buy and sell bitcoins in accordance with the needs of customers, the "trust will not be actively managed".

The presented ETF was the result of cooperation between the investment firm VanEck and the start-up SolidX. It marks the third attempt of VanEck to launch a mechanism for investing in bitcoin.

VanEck CEO Jan van Eck considers bitcoin to be a "full-fledged investment opportunity and" digital gold, "which can find a place in investor portfolios," despite regulatory barriers that his company faced in the past.

We believe that collectively we will build something that may be better than other constructs currently making their way through the regulatory process. A properly constructed physically-backed bitcoin ETF will be designed to provide exposure to the price of bitcoin, and an insurance component will help protect shareholders against the operational risks of sourcing and holding bitcoin.

Jan van Eck

CEO, VanEck

Although previously several companies tried to launch their own bitcoin-ETF, the SEC forced them to withdraw their bids. Then the regulator said that, among other things, it was concerned about the problems of volatility and liquidity of the cryptocurrency.

Israeli BTC Investors to Face Catch 22

They need to pay taxes from Bitcoin investing in order to avoid their property arrest, but banks don't take their money due to AML issues
06 August 2019   168

Bitcoin investors in Israel are faced with the impossibility of paying taxes, as local banks refuse to accept funds received from the sale of cryptocurrencies because of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. About this writes the local edition of Haaretz on August 6.

Bitcoin is not recognized as a currency in Israel, therefore, individuals must pay 25% of the income from cryptocurrency trading to the treasury, and legal entities - 47%.

Investor Ron Gross told the publication that he acquired bitcoins in 2011 and reported his income to the tax office. In 2017, the bank that served Gross began to refuse to accept funds received from the sale of bitcoins. The investor met with representatives of the bank to demonstrate to them a 70-page history of bitcoin transactions as confirmation of the origin of the funds, but failed to convince them.

The tax authority is aware of the problem, but they say the ball isn’t in their courts. I’ve tried working with almost all the banks, but the minute they hear the word ‘Bitcoin’ they freeze up.

Ron Gross

Bitcoin investor from Israel


Since Gross was unable to pay taxes on time, his bank account, home, and even scooters were arrested. According to the investor, the tax authorities know about the problem, but can do nothing.

According to Haaretz, the tax office is aware of $ 86 million in unpaid taxes on income from cryptocurrency trading. It is possible that the real amount may be significantly higher.

Roy Arav, another Bitcoin investor, kept the proceeds from trading Bitcoin in an account with Israeli bank Discount under the control of the Bit2C exchange. The bank refuses to transfer money to Arava’s personal account under the pretext that its politicians forbid it to transfer funds related to virtual assets to client accounts due to the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing.

Arav also could not pay taxes and was forced to sue the bank. According to the investor, the authorities entered his position and granted him a deferral of time for the consideration of the claim.