AP

ShoulderSeason

That’s in the AP class.

FullPortDildos

Who cares that they're an AP? That's literally their job. That's what half of their business is. You think this is a business where the only products they offer are products they personall think are great? Their job is to provide access to markets. You want to buy the Bitcoin ETF? Fine, we'll sell it to you. We think it's fucking stupid, but hey ... your money. How much you want?

Professional-Swim-69

Yep I used it all the time, Hotmail was the defacto standard (not even AOL as it didn't exist), ICQ was your messaging. Linux distribution Slackware, every single technology company today, everyone, build their products on Linux (or FreeBSD), your car, your fridge, your thermostat, the WiFi AP, the firewalls and routers connecting you, the world owes Torvalds for its contribution, we have a digital economy because of him. For good and bad I know Those modems you are talking about? I set them up at an ISP, 16 modem blades per chassis and a ComputeOne multiport card to connect these to a server. Cisco 4507 to the ISP running BGP with my ARIN AS, I'm sorry I'm ranting here, miss those days

StrivingPlusThriving

They are an AP for ibit, the Blackrock BTC ETF. In my opinion, it's unfortunate. But Bitcoin is for enemies.

Brettanomyces78

I'd like to hear some actual reasons why they're not one of the best news outlets. AP and NPR are about as neutral and fact based as they come in the US (add Reuters for non-US). That's not to say they're perfect or without fault, of course, but on balance and compared to everything else? Sure.

Inthewirelain

Yes that very quote is the one I mean >The pair took refuge in the news agency’s downtown headquarters, leaving a media mob outside. In AP’s report, published late on Thursday, the alleged currency mastermind said his English was imperfect and that the Newsweek reporter misinterpreted him when he said was “no longer involved in that”. >“I’m saying I’m no longer in engineering. That’s it,” he said of the exchange. “And even if I was, when we get hired you have to sign this document, contract, saying you will not reveal anything we divulge during and after employment. So that’s what I implied. It sounded like I was involved before with bitcoin and looked like I’m not involved now. That’s not what I meant. I want to clarify that,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/07/satoshi-nakamoto-denies-inventing-bitcoin So what about my other points

KindlyBlacksmith

You can just say they are completely clueless on technology. The concept of public key cryptography can be explained in 5 minutes. It is an incredibly basic concept even high schoolers taking AP comp science classes would know.

SatisfactionNo6729

Absolutely. Graduate School I was very lucky to have generous parents pay my tuition outright. I used some of the available student loans to invest in bitcoin. It was not 10k Euro but 6,500 USD. This was late 2016 and I know I ended up purchasing an even 7 BTC. I was very lucky. Overwhelmed by the most rigorous, least lucrative MA program (Sociology/Demography) at UCB; I was distracted. 2017 saw a spring where every day was a spikier spike (again I barely passed AP Econ in high school). Having been raised in the South Silicon Valley w/ its booms and busts…..I was conflicted daily on if I should sell. It was mostly pointless as things stabilized 18-19k during that time. Ultimately I sold 6 of 7 in around the Summer of 2018 for ≈ $16,500. I paid my loan immediately and managed a respectable $90,000 profit. If I had waited another year…much less…2-3 years and weeee. Either way it worked out great for me. I thought my experience was a worthy contribution since I’m in no position to give anyone financial advice. Your idea seems absolutely reasonable to me, as long as you have a 1-2 years or more and a loan that is not flat out fuckery. Good luck!

heartbleed_hack

They don’t but it so much as an AP for ETF exchanges shares for btc or vice versa to reset NAV

Jenn2895

$LINK. Chainlink are positioning themselves to be critical infrastructure. Over 2k partnerships including Univef, DTCC (stock market), Intel, Google, Oracle, IBM, Amazon AWS, Swift (world's largest financial messaging service), AP (Associated Press), Paxos, ANZ, Circle, Kraken, Binance, Bitrue, Mexc, NBA, Hyperledger, Kucoin, etc etc. Deadline for banks to transition to ISO 20022 is Nov 2025. Citi predicts Link will take prominence over BTC. When they flip the switch it's going to be wild! #CHAINLINK

heartbleed_hack

Look at how an ETF works. The price trades at a discount/premium to the NAV. ETF AP (creators/redeemers) can trade shares for the underlying and vice versa. Capital inflows require more buying of the underlying. As well if there is a mismatch from NAV the APs can do one of the actions (selling BTC to etf or buying BTC from ETF) to reset it after close.

StatisticalMan

When you (as joe sixpack) buy shares you are just buying from other investors. Blackrock doesn't rush out to buy Bitcoins because you aren't buying from blackrock. Note this is equally true of all other stocks/etfs. When net-inflows exceed net-outflows though that will cause shares to sell at a slight premium. When that happens "authorized participants" will deliver cash to Blackrock who will buy Bitcoins and issue NEW shares to the AP who will then sell them on the market for a small arbitrage profit. Both sides will you use hedging via future contracts if they want to be hedged against price fluctuations.

RiskyShift

Strictly speaking, they don't directly buy or sell in response to regular customers buying and selling on the secondary market between themselves. They buy/sell BTC when an AP (on its own behalf or on behalf of a market maker) creates/redeems ETF shares with the fund. The secondary market price movement incentivizes creation/redemption by presenting an arbitrage opportunity for APs/MMs.

Lazy-Might-5661

"Decentralizing the btc, more like giving it to the ETF' AP Coinbase.

Who_is_Satoshi

There is something called authorized participants (APs) who are responsible for purchasing the underlying asset (in this case BTC) for the ETFs. The APs are also responsible for creating additional ETF shares *with* the underlying asset they purchased in order to meet ETF share demand to ensure the ETF price tracks the underlying asset. JPMorgan, for example, is one of the AP's for either Blackrock or ARK's ETF. Likely, the APs hold extra BTC on their balance sheet in order to flex one way or another based on ETF trading so they can always make money. Very unlikely that an AP would be caught with their pants down needing to buy BTC en mass from the market in order to maintain ETF - BTC parity. In other words, when someone buys an ETF share, it does not mean that the APs go and buy BTC to reflect the person's ETF share purchase. Only when there is a shortage of shares, causing the ETFs to trade at a slight premium, do APs either use BTC they already hold to create additional ETF shares to align ETF price with BTC price, or purchase new BTC in order to create additional ETF shares to align the ETF price with BTC price. Better to look at general flows on a weekly level to understand the ETFs impact on BTC price. We did an episode on BTC ETFs recently: [https://open.spotify.com/episode/76VvEV2TDRumt7bmdlNAgv?si=6e7cbc77e133461c](https://open.spotify.com/episode/76VvEV2TDRumt7bmdlNAgv?si=6e7cbc77e133461c)

LolWhereAreWe

All those millions in crypto and you could only afford an Omega? Brutal Picked up the AP this year off of bond plays. You’ll get there one day champ.

AmongTheElect

Recently got BCUT as an AI play which is new enough it hasn't had any real jump yet. AP3, Shrapnel and Ridotto. A couple others. And there's three I like yet to be released where I'll probably sell a few current holdings to pick those up.

swordfishde

Not sure where they are getting their info. I’m not the expert. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so. My impression was that they needed to go through an authorized participant. So as long as the transaction is being done by the AP it doesn’t need to be “listed”. That’s just the definition of OTC. Adding it to the exchange book to sell right away makes no sense.

DeathScythe676

Let's not forget nepotism. Gary Gensler's former mentor, Glenn Ellison, just happens to be the father of Caroline Ellison. *"The AP reported that Ellison formerly worked with Gary Gensler when the now SEC chairman taught at MIT. As a former economics professor, it's likely that Gensler reported to Ellison, the department's head."* [https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-caroline-ellisons-parents-alameda-research-fraud-ftx-sbf-2022-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-caroline-ellisons-parents-alameda-research-fraud-ftx-sbf-2022-12) Caroline Ellison got no jail time.

Perfect_Ability_1190

Hitachi, Australian Payments Plus (AP+), and now Mondelēz International. Whose next?

MachaMacMorrigan

Pretty sure the AP *cannot* be the fund holder.

Arunav88

This is a very positive update for AP+ users.

Perfect_Ability_1190

May Lam, Chief Information Officer at Australian Payments Plus, stated, "With distributed ledgers, payments organizations like AP+ can benefit from increased transparency, enhanced security, and improved efficiency in transaction processing. AP+ has several initiatives underway to ride the wave of innovation with Hedera, unleashing the full potential of Distributed Ledger Technology to transform our organization."

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Australian Payments Plus (AP+), formed by the merger of eftpos, BPAY Group, and NPP Australia, has become a member of the Hedera Governing Council. AP+ is a member-owned organization with over 150 partners and processed 3.9 billion transactions in 2022. It operates in the public interest and includes a diverse range of members from domestic and international banks to merchants and payment service providers in Australia. AP+ is working on initiatives to leverage Distributed Ledger Technology with Hedera to transform its operations. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Bred_Slippy

But he's still happy for JPM to make profits from it from being an AP for BlackRock's spot ETF. Zero consistency or principles.

DamagedHells

It was a civil case, but he was found guilty. There's no clever language involved. https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20A,to%20regain%20the%20White%20House.

gabetucker22

I'm far left, but I don't consume mainstream news like NBC or CNN. I understand the dangers of getting information from NBC, so I consume the Economist's podcasts, AP News, video essays and interviews on YouTube, and some of Noam Chomsky/John Oliver/John Stewart's (admittedly politically biased, although rarely dishonest) work. Just because I like Sorkin as a journalist doesn't mean my main news source is NBC!

analogOnly

Isn't JP Morgan the AP on BlackRocks IBIT ETF?

AutoModerator

Here is a [Nitter link](https://nitter.net/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20) for the Twitter thread linked above. Nitter is better for privacy and does not nag you for a login. More information can be found [here](https://nitter.net/about). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Objective_Digit

Gensler will fight it apparently. https://x.com/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20

AutoModerator

Here is a [Nitter link](https://nitter.net/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20) for the Twitter thread linked above. Nitter is better for privacy and does not nag you for a login. More information can be found [here](https://nitter.net/about). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Objective_Digit

The CFTC is not the SEC. It certainly won't be approved this year. https://x.com/AP_Abacus/status/1745900387570217036?s=20

StatisticalMan

That is not entirely correct. When you Joe Sixpack buy shares you are just buying from another investor. However without a balancing mechanism demand could push the price of the ETF away from the NAV (value of Bitcoins per share). So authorized participants will deliver cash to create shares as needed on demand. If inflows exceed outflows the ETFs need to issue more shares. The receive cash from AP, create new shares, and buy more Bitcoins. To be clear though ever trade doesn't result in buying more Bitcoins. All that matters is net inflows or net outflows. If there are net inflows then they will issue more shares and buy more Bitcoins. If there are net outflows they will destroy shares and sell the Bitcoins. Last week there was $800M in net inflows which is about 10,000 BTC. It remains to be seen what inflows look like this week. There was no trading yesterday but we should see net inflows updated this evening for today.

stormdelta

> Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, Clearstream, Citi Bank, BNY Mellon, BNP Paribas, Lloyds, ANZ Bank, SDX, Vodafone, Swisscom, Deutsche Telekom, PWC, AP > All working with Chainlink on the creation of an global onchain economy If I had ten bucks for every time I've heard a claim like this I could retire. What really happens in most cases is the companies make a high profile announcement, eventually realize the engineering tradeoffs don't make sense, and quietly abandon it later. In rarer cases things get far enough that it turns into a high profile failure like what happened in Australia. > Your take on Chainlink sounds like you haven’t kept up with anything they’ve done since 2018 What I'm talking about involves fundamentals of how security and trust actually work with real world software systems. Put another way, if a company claims they've invented what amounts to literal magic, I have good cause to say it's snake oil or at best highly misleading. You shouldn't take anything claimed by marketing in this space without an entire ocean of salt.

jdawg3051

Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, Clearstream, Citi Bank, BNY Mellon, BNP Paribas, Lloyds, ANZ Bank, SDX, Vodafone, Swisscom, Deutsche Telekom, PWC, AP All working with Chainlink on the creation of an global onchain economy Your take on Chainlink sounds like you haven’t kept up with anything they’ve done since 2018 Americans think the world wants to depend on its financial system but they don’t anymore because of reckless monetary policy

looneytones8

What AP would accept a private key, which has the risk of still being in possession of the provider?

analogOnly

Just because it's an interesting thought exercise. If an AP get coin from an OTC provider, but instead of making the blockchain transaction, simple provides the private key to the coin, would an off chain transaction not be considered valid to you?

analogOnly

Even if they don't they can sell shares as if they do, the AP for each provider is responsible for buying more coin to fill share orders.

appmapper

That's not really how ETF's work. >The Trust issues and redeems Baskets on a continuous basis. These transactions will take place in exchange for cash. Subject to the In-Kind Regulatory Approval, these transactions may also take place in exchange for bitcoin. The timing of the In-Kind Regulatory Approval is unknown, and there is no guarantee that NASDAQ will receive the In-Kind Regulatory Approval at any point in the future. If NASDAQ receives the In-Kind Regulatory Approval and if the Sponsor chooses to allow in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a prospectus supplement, in its periodic Exchange Act reports and on the Trust’s website. Baskets are only issued or redeemed in exchange for an amount of cash determined by the Trustee on each day that NASDAQ is open for regular trading. No Shares are issued unless the Bitcoin Custodian or Prime Execution Agent has allocated to the Trust’s account the corresponding amount of bitcoin. As of the date of this prospectus, a Basket requires delivery of $998,003.28. Baskets may be created or redeemed only by Authorized Participants, who pay BlackRock Investments, LLC (“BRIL”), an affiliate of the Trustee that has been retained by the Trust to perform certain order processing, Authorized Participant communications, and related services in connection with the issuance and redemption of Baskets (“eservices”), (1) a transaction fee for each order to create or redeem Baskets(the “ETF Servicing Fee”) and (2) transfer, processing and other transaction costs charged by the Bitcoin Custodian in connection with the issuance of Baskets for such purchase order (“Custody Transaction Costs”). > >The Authorized Participants will deliver only cash to create Shares and will receive only cash when redeeming Shares. Further, Authorized Participants will not directly or indirectly purchase, hold, deliver, or receive bitcoin as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a third party with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving bitcoin as part of the creation or redemption process. > >The Trust will create Shares by receiving bitcoin from a third party that is not the Authorized Participant and the Trust—not the Authorized Participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to deliver the bitcoin. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the bitcoin to the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the bitcoin to the Trust. The Trust will redeem Shares by delivering bitcoin to a third party that is not the Authorized Participant and the Trust—not the Authorized Participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to receive the bitcoin. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the bitcoin from the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the bitcoin from the Trust. The third party will be unaffiliated with the Trust and the Sponsor. > >See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement” for more details. [https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/prospectus/p-ishares-bitcoin-trust-12-31.pdf](https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/prospectus/p-ishares-bitcoin-trust-12-31.pdf) The APs make money off the arbitrage between the value of the goods in the basket and the ETF price. If the ETF was "under valued" an AP would purchase shares in the open market and redeem them for the basket of goods. The ETF makes money on fees. The APs make money via arbitrage. They don't need to be clever or risky. They were clever when they created the system in a way that guarantees they get paid. Now they just let it do it's thing. [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/authorizedparticipant.asp#:\~:text=This%20process%20also%20works%20in,the%20ETF%20market%20through%20arbitrage](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/authorizedparticipant.asp#:~:text=This%20process%20also%20works%20in,the%20ETF%20market%20through%20arbitrage).

genobeam

There's a lot wrong with this. Let's break it down. >Let's say we have a fund with 10 shares, and it bought 10 BTC at 20k previously. Customer A bought 1 share at 40k, and it would be his cost basis.  Let's make some definitions here to make things clear. Individual investors buy shares through an authorized participant. When you say "fund" I assume you're talking about the AP's fund. So the AP buys 10 shares at 20k and customer A buys 1 share from the AP at 40k. >Let's say the price of BTC remains 45k. If the AP redeem 5 shares at 45k, the fund would sell 5 BTC at 45k and realize 25k x 5 = 125k.  The AP already sold one share to our customer so these 5 shares have to be separate from that one. The AP can't sell a share twice. So this part is irrelevant to our customer.  >At the end of the year, the fund would distribute 125k to the remaining 5 shares The AP gets the 125k from the fund as soon as it redeems them. The customer doesn't get anything because the customer hasn't sold their share. If these shares were sold for the AP itself then the AP is liable for the capital gains. If these shares were sold on behalf of a customer the tax liability gets passed through to that customer. >Customer A would receive 25k which is taxable If customer a isn't selling, customer a doesn't receive anything. They still have their 1 share and that's it.  > price would also decrease by 25k. Why? >Therefore, if customer A sell his share before the tax year ends, he would realize 20k capital loss to offset the distributed 25k capital gain, and he only pays tax for the remaining 5k capital gains. In your scenario Bitcoin is still at 45k so if customer A sold they'd realize 5k of gains. There is no realized capital loss. There is no "distribution" from the other transaction because the customer was not a part of that transaction.

count1068

Let's say we have a fund with 10 shares, and it bought 10 BTC at 20k previously. Customer A bought 1 share at 40k, and it would be his cost basis. Let's say the price of BTC remains 45k. If the AP redeem 5 shares at 45k, the fund would sell 5 BTC at 45k and realize 25k x 5 = 125k. At the end of the year, the fund would distribute 125k to the remaining 5 shares, and customer A would receive 25k which is taxable, but the share price would also decrease by 25k. Therefore, if customer A sell his share before the tax year ends, he would realize 20k capital loss to offset the distributed 25k capital gain, and he only pays tax for the remaining 5k capital gains. However, if he doesn't pay attention and he doesn't sell his share before the tax year ends, he would need to pay tax for the 25k capital gains this year, and the 20k capital loss can only be carried over to offset future capital gains.

count1068

The customers who sell would realize capital gains at personal level. However, when the AP (Authorized Participant) redeem shares in cash to reduce the tracking difference, the fund would need to realize capital gains at fund level to pay the cash to AP. The capital gains at fund level then would be distributed to customers at the end of year and the customers would be taxed on received distributions.

klauskinski79

By definition buying and selling is always the same. It's a market. You can't have someone buy without someone selling. Thats the fun thing of an etf. Now what you can check is the net asset value of the etf. Basically what happens if an etf value has been raised above the net asset value of the underlying assets ( an etf trades for 5m in value times outstanding shares but owns only 4m ( at 40k Esch) in bitcoin ) is that specialized large investors have the ability to - buy bitcoin - sell it to the etf at 40k each getting new stocks in return ( creation Units ) - this will increase the value of the outstanding shares because there are now more - the value of the assets of the etf will also increase. This will go on until either the price of the assets rise because of the buying pressure or the demand for the stocks of the etf is satisfied it drops and you get back to equilibrium. So basically it's just one extra Step instead of buying bitcoin directly you buy the etf and the AP ( authorized Partner) buys bitcoin and gets more shares in return.

soks86

When an Authorized Participant sells shares he bought on the open market to get cash out the ETF sponsor is going to have to get money. If they don't have BTC and it went to a million the AP is gonna file a lawsuit and the ETF sponsor will end up in jail for securities fraud. I agree with you, in general, but the system is implemented with 4 middlemen between the BTC and the retail buyer. Conspiracies fall apart when you add too many people.

jchill_

Of course! So if an ETF has a creation process called “in-kind” that means the AP creates shares by directly sending in the underlying asset and getting shares in return. That’s what you are describing. It looks like these Bitcoin ETFs are generally cash creates which means they send in cash at the value of the underlying asset then get shares at the share price in return. The ETF manager then deploys that cash by either trading in the market or going OTC to buy the underlying asset. Once the creation is done, shares outstanding goes up and us plebs can go buy in the market. Also noticing the Greyscale ETF shares outstanding have gone down, which proves your theory correct. As for the mechanics behind it, APs came in and redeemed shares so Greyscale had to go sell Bitcoin so they could send cash to fund the redemptions. Probably explains the price movement today.

Disastrous-Dinner966

There's no way to buy $1million of an ETF without someone selling you $1million of the ETF. If 'Nobody initiates sells' your trade will sit there unexecuted. If your trade crosses in the secondary market, you may just be buying the shares of the ETF someone else is selling and it doesn't affect the underlying directly. If your demand is greater than the supply available at that price, you may trigger creation units. The AP buys the BTC, ships it to coinbase, alerts BR, and BR creates new shares for you. So trading in the ETF doesn't exert direct pressure on spot prices until there is a supply or demand imbalance in the ETF shares. Then new ETF shares are created or old shares are redeemed as needed, with direct effects on the spot price.

jchill_

As a guy that manages ETFs for a living you have a few misconceptions here. (1) This is likely accurate. Many ETFs do trade in the spot market but with larger volumes it is preferable to go OTC. (2) This is not really accurate. The manager of the ETF does not unilaterally trade the underlying asset to reconcile the price value of the ETF shares with the value of the underlying asset (in this case Bitcoin). Authorized participants (AP) direct these types of trades. There is a threshold for net buys or net sales and, if that threshold is crossed, an AP will come in to create or redeem shares. The manager then trades the underlying asset in response to those creations and redemptions. It is common for an ETF to trade at a premium or a discount until an AP takes action to correct the discrepancy. (3) This is correct. (4) This is opinion so can’t really speak to it. I can see the shares outstanding has not moved which means there have not been any creations or redemptions. I am not sure why since it seems like there is plenty of incentive to redeem given GBTC is trading at such a premium. (5) this appears to be correct. The number of shares outstanding in IBIT, FBTC, and ARKB have all risen which means there have been creations. I’m at work so don’t have enough time to look into the last two points. Hope this helps!

4fingertakedown

Their AP can and will. In fact, this was a condition of the SEC’s approval. In theory, this helps AP settle their baskets faster with less room for funky business (per the SEC).

lDrinkY0urMi1kshak3

Preston Pysh gave this great breakdown Here's what's happening. Let's say a guy name Mickey buys a Blackrock ETF (Bad Mickey - buy the real stuff) 1. Mickey purchases a share of the BlackRock #Bitcoin ETF through his brokerage, reflecting a portion of the ETF's #Bitcoin holdings. 2. The market price of the ETF shares can deviate from the NAV based on supply and demand. High demand can lead to a premium, while low demand might result in a discount. These price deviations signal to Authorized Participants (APs) when to create (for premiums) or redeem (for discounts) shares, aiming to align the market price with the NAV. 3. JPMorgan, as an AP, responds to market signals by creating or redeeming baskets. This process helps maintain the balance between the ETF's share supply and investor demand. 4. For new AP baskets, JPM provides cash to BlackRock equivalent to the #Bitcoin value needed for backing the new shares. 5. BlackRock uses the cash to purchase #Bitcoin from Coinbase OTC. 6. Post-purchase, the Bitcoin remains with Coinbase, which acts as the custodian. A transfer of ownership is recorded administratively, and the Blackrock ETF recognized as the rightful owner of the Bitcoin (on behalf of the shareholders of course 😏). 7. The NAV of the ETF is updated to include the newly acquired Bitcoin. JPM receives the new Basket of shares for market trading. 8. JPM releases the new shares to the market, enhancing the ETF's liquidity. This helps align the ETF's market price with its NAV. 9. The iShares prospectus specifies that the settlement deadline is on the calendar day immediately following the day the Trade Credit was extended, or the next business day if it’s not a business day​​. This suggests a T+1 settlement cycle (Trade Date plus one business day) for the ETF transactions, quicker than the standard T+2 settlement cycle for many securities. Mickey's ETF share links him to the Bitcoin held by Coinbase under BlackRock's name. His investment value is subject to changes in the ETF's NAV, influenced by the Bitcoin market and the ETF's liquidity.

LiftingandCooking

No, the ETF + AP have bought Bitcoin to back the ETF shares they issued. That's what spot means. A bitcoin futures ETF is what you describe though.

MegaSuperSaiyan

Like u/Crafty_Supermarket15 mentioned, I'm probably oversimplifying too much by treating the ETF and APs, MM, exchanges, etc. as a single entity. AFAIK, *someone* is allowed to arbitrage the daily exchange of ETF shares for Bitcoin, and they should be allowed to sell previously owned bitcoins to the ETF without necessarily buying more in the open market. Assuming there isn't excessive collusion then you're right, as APs would have no incentive to sell their bitcoins at below market price. However, I still think some of the AP's could potentially benefit from accumulating bitcoin slowly OTC if they expect volatility/price to increase significantly in the future. All just a guess, based on Bitcoin's volatility providing unique arbitrage opportunities compared to traditional assets. I don't think any of that would impact end consumers of either the ETF or Bitcoin though.

AsleepOnTheTrain

Sure, if you're an AP.

Wise-Application-144

JP Morgan is an authorised participant in the Blackrock Bitcoin ETF. Jamie Dimon is literally named as the AP in the regulatory filing.

btc21million

Just watch the charts. The god candle will appear shortly before it's officially announced. Supposed to happen tomorrow: [https://nitter.net/jacqmelinek](https://nitter.net/jacqmelinek) [https://nitter.net/AP\_Abacus](https://nitter.net/AP_Abacus) or this: https://nitter.net/martypartymusic

HurricaneHarvey7

>whispers and internal conversations at multiple $BTC ETF firms that we are a full ‘GO’. \- source: “barring a dramatic buzzer beater type of reversal, expecting approval no later than **Monday**.” \- additional source: “could we get the call tmrw, possibly; sounds more like Monday though.” \*\*lots of buzzing this afternoon https://twitter.com/AP\_Abacus/status/1742985811694432626

Disavowed_Rogue

Great read explaining authorized participants (AP) and what they do.

JasonMeyers

JP was named in two other amendments so far. SEC is now examining the agreements with those two sponsors. Why didn’t Grayscale also disclose JP if they were retained? Are they choosing another AP? Is there a problem with another AP? Why was JP chosen by Blackrock? Why after all this time in registration and litigation on a matter related to a summary denial is it taking so long to finalize and disclose the existence and nature of the retention of an AP? Are you aware that ETFs are required to execute order ONLY through Prime Execution contracts? Are you also aware that Shared Surveillance Agreements were the main bottleneck for SEC to consider declaring a registration statement effective and that it required a new rule to be adopted by SEC to deal with monitoring potential price manipulation in light of a lack of order handling rules on exchanges that trade Bitcoin because NONE of them are 34 Act registered or exempt or CFTC registered or monitored? WHY IS JP MORGAN A CONSTANT NAMED AUTHORIZED PARTICIPANT IN ALL AMENDMENTS BY ALL SPONSORS SO FAR ? WHY? Can YOU answer ANY of these questions?

JasonMeyers

If they omitted the AP in the latest amendment after a long legal battle w SEC it means retention of the AP has not yet been finalized. Why?

ignore_my_typo

They have some initial seed money but it’s peanuts. They don’t buy or sell Bitcoin. They handle the money and the AP issue the ETFs and the CEX holds the Bitcoin.

ignore_my_typo

Seeing how JPMorgan is listed as the AP on numerous ETFs, we do as Dimon does, not what he says. I’m pretty confident the Feds are not trying to kill Bitcoin so much as they want to control it through Bills like Warren is trying to pass. I’m sure they are ok with ETFs because it can’t be used for “illicit behaviour and terrorism”. Spot BTC can (we know this is entirely false and inaccurate. Such a small amount of crypto is used to finance this vs fiat). But that is the feds stance right now. Like ESG, which was refuted and proved to be widely incorrect (notice we don’t hear this angle any longer) the flavour of the year is illicit finance. This too shall pass. It may take years and battles in the court, but you can’t censor code and you can’t stop Bitcoin. But in the meantime products like ETF (cash create) will have to suffice. We can only hope that the mighty inflow of money into the ETF is overwhelming. This will do two things. Financial institutions will continue to market the hell out of it and more money will flow in, and those invested in the ETF will learn what the Bitcoin ethos really is and start investing in spot. If more invest in an etf and spot then too much pressure will be put on the feds, like Warren, who will have to relent or “agree to disagree”, because she will lose her power and will not be voted in. In my opinion what this is all about is the crypto space period. It’s not about the ETH or BTC but rather the push for a US CBDC and loss of fiat inflows to banking because the money is starting to flow into another asset class. And they are not getting the piece of the pie. All roads lead to bitcoin. There will be battles. But ultimately we will win. And even if shit gets harder for the US that is not what is happening globally. The UK is putting out favourable crypto legislation. Hong Kong and China open for bitcoin ETFs. The list goes on and on. The US can snooze and lose but it will only be a bump in the road.

Easy-Yogurt4939

He literally went in front of senate banking committee less than a month ago and said if I were the government, I’d shut crypto down. Working out a deal to be AP of an ETF is not a 3 weeks effort. He does not feel embarrassed, if Larry fink has no issue to go on National TV to call crypto a flight to safety when he called it a scam years ago, knowing well that people will call him out on that. Jamie Dimon is not going to feel embarrassed that his company will make millions if not billions from this ETF in the years to come.

Stonk_Tendy

Currently GBTC only allows creation of units.The conversion to an open ended ETF will allow it to use the creation/redemption mechanisms simultaneously. A third party, called an AP works alongside ETF issuers to ensure the market value of the units is relatively always equal to the underlying value / holdings per unit. The AP is incentivized to keep the price very close to NAV by a type of trade called arbitrage. If/until it officially becomes an O.O ETF, anything can happen. Afterwards, there will essentially be close to zero deviation between the NAV and the market price. It is possible, but unlikely that it will jump into a premium briefly if they get the green light, but institutions and traders will very likely front run the conversion by arbitraging the premium (short GBTC, long BTC)/discount (long GBTC, short BTC) until it begins trading as an O.O ETF. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puEc9r7w7VI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puec9r7w7vi)

LiftingandCooking

What Bitcoin Did podcast 738 with Steve McClurg, CEO of Valkyrie Investments covers this at 55:00 in. Where's the paper bitcoin come into fruition like you claim? Who is committing the fraud, the AP or the ETF issuer?

_etherium

This paper is not really applicable to the upcoming(?) spot BTC etfs because they are cash creates, not in-kind. The shorting mentioned in the paper is not a directional bet, it is effectively a spread trade. In the paper, the AP sells the shares to the ETF (create) and then hedges while looking for a better fill before delivering the shares to the ETF. In cash creates (spot BTC etf), the AP must deliver the cash up front. This is not an institutional short selling conspiracy. Without looking at your profile, I'm going to guess you invest in GME.

Scoob8877

This isn't about the end investor (people like us). You were always going to have to buy with cash and take cash when you redeem. ETFs are traded on an exchange like a stock. Mutual funds, including ETFs, have the option of in-kind redemptions for shareholders but this rarely happens and is the fund's choice, not yours. It typically only happens when a very large shareholder is redeeming and selling the securities would create adverse tax consequences for the remaining shareholders. This is about the management of the ETF. There are creation and redemption "baskets" used to handle inflows and outflows for ETFs, as mentioned in the article. There are middlemen involved in the capital markets aspect of running an ETF, known as authorized participants. The SEC is saying it wants the fund itself to buy the bitcoin and not the AP and transactions will be done with cash vs in-kind. ETFs like to rely on in-kind generally. It helps to keep taxes down as well. The industry wants the option to do either cash or in-kind.

Hugh_Mongous_Richard

That’s not exactly true. When the price of the ETF shares (eg. 10 dollars ) is higher than the underlying security (eg. 9 dollars), the Authorized Participant (usually a bank) buys the underlying and sells to the ETF manager, who then redeems the underlying for new shares in the ETF and pockets the difference. When the price of the ETF shares is lower than the underlying securities, the AP buys the ETF, and then redeems the ETF shares for the underlying security, and pockets the difference.

Disastrous-Dinner966

That's not how it works. The creation and redemption mechanism in the ETF structure allows the number of shares outstanding in an ETF to expand or contract based on demand. ETF shares are created when an AP submits an order for one or more creation units. The AP can either keep the ETF shares that make up the creation unit or sell all or part of them to its clients or to other investors on a stock exchange, in a “dark pool” (private exchange), or in other trading venues. So shares are only created when cash enters the pool.

spiraling_out

I'm so thankful I took AP Econ in highschool. For an AP class, it wasn't even that hard.

moderatelyremarkable

Many people seem confused about how an ETF works. My knowledge comes from a different jurisdiction than the US and obviously from ETFs that track other things (securities), not cryptocurrencies. So let's get started. Before its approval by the relevant regulator and subsequent launch by the manager, the ETF doesn't exist as an entity. Therefore, a bitcoin ETF itself cannot buy bitcoin now as it doesn't exist yet. Next. What keeps the manager from buying bitcoin for the future ETF with a different investment vehicle and then passing it on to the ETF once its launched? After its approved and launched, the ETF starts with a seed capital which is not usually huge and which is probably invested by a vehicle of the manager's group or some other single investor; there's not a huge benefit in buying the first bitcoin at a discounted price with this initial capital as it doesn't benefit a large number of investors. Furthermore, this initial seed capital is irrelevant in the (hopefully) long term future of the ETF, which is expected to see, in time, accumulated assets which are vastly larger than that initial capital. An ETFs assets grow due to market demand; they're not huge to start with and then that huge number of shares get traded on an exchange like a stock (well, this isn't completely accurate with stocks either, as companies grow and issue more stock from time to time). So, how does the ETF grow if it starts small compared to where it's expected to get? ETF trading involves market makers which continuously post buy and sell orders in the market. If demand for the ETF is higher than supply, than the market maker can go to the fund manager to get new ETF shares issued and thus the ETF grows (there are other ways too). This happens if the market maker is also a so-called authorized participant; if not they will engage one for this. The reverse is true when there's more supply than demand, i.e. more selling: the MM/AP engages the fund manager to get ETF shares redeemed. The bottom line is this: any initial bitcoin buys at ETF launch are irrelevant as the fund gradually grows, gets more money and continuously buys the underlying asset, e.g. bitcoin. One other potential reason to buy bitcoin in advance and then pass it on to the ETF at a discounted price is to show a large return at ETF inception. But this won't happen either. Most ETF's, including cryptocurrency ones, employ a passive investment strategy, i.e. the manager is not actively trading the asset, buying some today, selling some tomorrow, etc, in order to time the market, implement proprietary strategies, etc (that would be active management). Instead, the idea here is to buy the underlying asset with all of the fund's cash (save some needed for fund expenses) and just hold on to it, so you can pass as much of the asset's returns (e.g. bitcoin) to the fund's investors (for other underlying assets, i.e. stock indexes, there's some rebalancing done, etc). The management goal of a passively-managed fund is not to be as profitable as possible, as some might think, but to have as lower tracking error as posible compared to the underlying asset, be it bitcoin, a stock index, a commodity, etc. Hence a gimmick at ETF launch of getting discounted bitcoin which was bought in advance makes no sense. TLDR: In my opinon Bitcoin ETFs will not buy any bitcoin before they are approved and launched. And that's not bad for bitcoin. After launch, they will buy bitcoin continuously and gradually, long term and with increasing funds, based on market demand for the ETF. That's a huge potential demand for bitcoin as ETFs are expected to provide a way for a larger segment of investors to get into crypto compared to what we see now. I hope I didn't miss anything.

LiftingandCooking

I have an ongoing conversation about the ETFs with Google Bard and it says the ETFs can frontrun - "Could Fidelity buy 1000 BTC today off the open market from an exchange like Kraken and then use those 1000 BTC for their initial ETF when it's finally approved? They would just give the AP the 1000 BTC instead of the AP buying the 1000 BTC to create some ETF shares" Yes, Fidelity could buy 1000 BTC today off the open market from an exchange like Kraken and then use those 1000 BTC for their initial ETF when it's finally approved. They would just give the AP the 1000 BTC instead of the AP buying the 1000 BTC to create some ETF shares. This is a common practice for ETF providers. They will often purchase the underlying assets for their ETFs before the ETFs are launched. This allows them to ensure that they have enough assets to meet the initial demand for the ETFs. However, there are some risks associated with this practice. For example, if the price of Bitcoin falls between the time that Fidelity buys it and the time that the ETF is launched, Fidelity will lose money. Additionally, if the SEC does not approve Fidelity's application for a spot Bitcoin ETF, Fidelity will be left with a large amount of Bitcoin that they will need to sell.

budlystuff

The fact the Isreal has locked up 10,000 Palestinians children since 2005 through military courts is wild. 80% of the population of Gaza is under the age 30 is not by accident. The deaths on the Palestinians side far outweigh the loss of live on the Isreali. Through US aid(bombs). Electricity is controlled by Israel, fishing boarders, water and resources. Mr Rupert Murdoch of AP and Fox News, Daily Mail all round scumbag. Has an oil exploration company called Genie Developments in hotly contested golan heights Syria. It’s no mistake who he supports and peddles through his news outlets. People talk about occupation and Russia if you want the facts on Isreali war crimes you will find little on Rupert Murdoch media. This looks like apartheid and people in the US need to give their little heads a wobble when they think of offerings and support of an apartheid state.

Abject-Government-13

Microsoft D365 is an ERP system for the mid-market. They are modular, so General ledger, Accounts payable, Accounts receivable etc. I would like to develop a Crypto Module to feature a wallet, and the ability to do AP and AR invoicing in cryptocurrencies, cash receipts, cash payments, etc. I would like to sell this to MSFT. Let me know if you are interested in building this out together. We could even develop a blockchain explorer to exist within the application, perhaps even integrate smart contracts which execute automatically with vendors and customers as they relate to Sales orders etc.

RTGold

"In 2022, reported consumer losses to fraud totaled $8.8 billion — a 30 percent increase from 2021, according to the most recent data from the Federal Trade Commission. The biggest losses were to investment scams, including cryptocurrency schemes, which cost people more than $3.8 billion, double the amount in 2021." [Source, AP News.](https://apnews.com/article/scams-phishing-robocalls-facebook-marketplace-291255fc54f4bef161cb6155af562d96#)

Wonzky

>which makes for about 35% AP Damn that's down almost half from 65%

SchrodingersCat6e

I don't know how common that description is. For example ARKK is always buying and selling to re-balance. At the heart of the ETF structure is the "creation and redemption" process, which involves large financial institutions known as Authorized Participants (APs). APs can create or redeem ETF shares directly with the ETF issuer. Creation: If there's demand for an ETF, an AP assembles a basket of the underlying assets that the ETF is designed to track. This could be stocks, bonds, commodities, or other assets. The AP then delivers this basket to the ETF issuer, and in exchange, the AP receives shares of the ETF. These ETF shares are then available to be sold on the open market. Redemption: The opposite happens when there's a decrease in demand for the ETF. The AP buys ETF shares from the open market and then returns these shares to the ETF issuer. In exchange, the AP receives a basket of the underlying assets. Ownership of Underlying Assets: The assets delivered to (or received from) the ETF issuer during the creation (or redemption) process are held in a trust. The ETF itself represents an interest in this trust. So when you buy shares of an ETF, you're essentially buying a piece of this trust, which holds the underlying assets. You don't directly own the underlying assets, but rather you own a proportional interest in the aggregate assets of the ETF. Differences from Mutual Funds: This mechanism is different from traditional mutual funds, which issue new shares or redeem existing shares directly with investors at the net asset value (NAV) at the end of the trading day. ETFs, on the other hand, trade throughout the day on exchanges at market prices, which can be at a premium or discount to NAV. Derivative-based and Synthetic ETFs: It's worth noting that not all ETFs own the actual underlying assets. Some ETFs, particularly in certain international markets, might use derivatives (like swaps) to achieve their desired exposure. These are often called synthetic ETFs. The use of derivatives means that these ETFs don't hold the actual underlying assets but rather have contracts that provide the returns of such assets. Investors should be aware of the structure and risks of any ETF they're considering. Most ETFs do own the underlying securities, and this is a fundamental feature that differentiates them from other investment products. However, as with all investments, investors should conduct thorough research and understand the structure and holdings of any ETF they're considering.

AutoModerator

Here is a [Nitter link](https://nitter.net/AP_Abacus/status/1706327219503599969) for the Twitter thread linked above. Nitter is better for privacy and does not nag you for a login. More information can be found [here](https://nitter.net/about). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*

elidevious

Still no news regarding the sale of Coindesk. I remain of the thought that the bids are far less than the famous $125million touted by the Digital Currency Group. Probably an excuse to lay off a good portion of the staff. https://twitter.com/AP_Abacus/status/1706327219503599969

elidevious

https://twitter.com/AP_Abacus/status/1701311629781053645 new filing 🔸 Binance vs 🦅 SEC

AutoModerator

Here is a [Nitter link](https://nitter.net/AP_Abacus/status/1701311629781053645) for the Twitter thread linked above. Nitter is better for privacy and does not nag you for a login. More information can be found [here](https://nitter.net/about). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Bazbar71

Erik Balchunas, ETF analyst for Bloomberg, recently stated that BR will not buy btc but the AP will do it for her. Change anything?

waitingonawait

Have some copy pasta. This guy words it better than i ever could. *There's 4 big problems that I see with ETF's and I fully believe they will be at the heart of some future financial crisis.* *The 1st is that everybody is in them. Literally, ask anyone you know what is in their retirement portfolio, and 99% of the time it's almost all put into one of two things: an index-tracking ETF like SPY, VOO, or VTI, or some target retirement date mutual fund. If it's the latter, ask them what's in the fund - they'll probably have no clue, but guess what; i can guarantee it overlaps HEAVILY with those same broad ETFs. Look at the Vanguard Target Retirement 2060 Fund, which is what a lot of millenials would probably be in; 54% of its holdings are just sitting in another fund, the "Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Institutional Plus Shares." The end result of all this is that virtually every single person on the planet super heavily invested into the same set of shares; AAPL, MSFT, AMZN, GOOG, NVDA, TSLA, BRK.B...you get the idea.* *The second is that literally nobody gets how these things work. Even the financial advisors who tout them as a sure thing don't have a clue what the mechanics of these things are. Besides all the operational shorting, something that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that a lot of them have liquidity multipliers that are used as part of allocations. Basically, they are built specifically to have only the most liquid securities, so that they can trade in mass (which is important for issuers because the fees are so low). The result of this, again, is that they are less diverse than you think - the same highly liquid securities are among the top holdings in almost any ETF you find.* *The 3rd thing is, they keep being presented to investors as diverse and "safe", when that couldn't be further from the truth. If nearly every single investor has a huge chunk of their savings in the same top 20 stocks, how is that diverse? You know how there's this weird phenomenon, that fund managers can no longer beat the market for more than a year or 2? That wasn't always the case. It's not that the fund managers suddenly all got bad at it at the same time; it's that these broad market index funds are carrying more risk than anyone cares to admit. More risk = higher returns, but when the market truly turns, its gonna be insane because whether you are selling SPY, VOO, or a retirement fund, you are selling the same shares as everyone else in the world.* *And 4th. The operational shorting. Watch Richard Evans on YouTube if you haven't, because he explains it really well. One of the reasons you have insane short interest and FTDs on ETFs is because AP's have learned to delay the purchase of shares. If there is some systemic event that creates a liquidity crunch in the underlying stocks, I could see the ETFs just straight up breaking.* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg&t=1s) *It's terrifying and kind of mind-boggling if I'm being honest how we got to this point. It reminds me a lot of the MBS's that were being sold in mass leading up to 2008 - everyone keeps saying - "look, over time they always go up." Only its even worse because this time it's not just banks buying the bags of shit, it's basically everyone who has a retirement account. It's so strange to me how self-assured everyone is that the safest thing you can do is DCA into the SPY and never look back. They say things like "statistically this beats everything in the long run" - but if past results don't predict future returns why is this different? What makes everyone so damn confident?*

waitingonawait

Lol simplifies. Doesn't really look that 'simple'. I'm not claiming to have some great understanding of how they work specifically either, just saying i straight up don't trust them, or the people who tout them as a guarantee. I'll copy out a comment that words it better than i could ever hope to. *There's 4 big problems that I see with ETF's and I fully believe they will be at the heart of some future financial crisis.* *The 1st is that everybody is in them. Literally, ask anyone you know what is in their retirement portfolio, and 99% of the time it's almost all put into one of two things: an index-tracking ETF like SPY, VOO, or VTI, or some target retirement date mutual fund. If it's the latter, ask them what's in the fund - they'll probably have no clue, but guess what; i can guarantee it overlaps HEAVILY with those same broad ETFs. Look at the Vanguard Target Retirement 2060 Fund, which is what a lot of millenials would probably be in; 54% of its holdings are just sitting in another fund, the "Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Institutional Plus Shares." The end result of all this is that virtually every single person on the planet super heavily invested into the same set of shares; AAPL, MSFT, AMZN, GOOG, NVDA, TSLA, BRK.B...you get the idea.* *The second is that literally nobody gets how these things work. Even the financial advisors who tout them as a sure thing don't have a clue what the mechanics of these things are. Besides all the operational shorting, something that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that a lot of them have liquidity multipliers that are used as part of allocations. Basically, they are built specifically to have only the most liquid securities, so that they can trade in mass (which is important for issuers because the fees are so low). The result of this, again, is that they are less diverse than you think - the same highly liquid securities are among the top holdings in almost any ETF you find.* *The 3rd thing is, they keep being presented to investors as diverse and "safe", when that couldn't be further from the truth. If nearly every single investor has a huge chunk of their savings in the same top 20 stocks, how is that diverse? You know how there's this weird phenomenon, that fund managers can no longer beat the market for more than a year or 2? That wasn't always the case. It's not that the fund managers suddenly all got bad at it at the same time; it's that these broad market index funds are carrying more risk than anyone cares to admit. More risk = higher returns, but when the market truly turns, its gonna be insane because whether you are selling SPY, VOO, or a retirement fund, you are selling the same shares as everyone else in the world.* *And 4th. The operational shorting. Watch Richard Evans on YouTube if you haven't, because he explains it really well. One of the reasons you have insane short interest and FTDs on ETFs is because AP's have learned to delay the purchase of shares. If there is some systemic event that creates a liquidity crunch in the underlying stocks, I could see the ETFs just straight up breaking.* *It's terrifying and kind of mind-boggling if I'm being honest how we got to this point. It reminds me a lot of the MBS's that were being sold in mass leading up to 2008 - everyone keeps saying - "look, over time they always go up." Only its even worse because this time it's not just banks buying the bags of shit, it's basically everyone who has a retirement account. It's so strange to me how self-assured everyone is that the safest thing you can do is DCA into the SPY and never look back. They say things like "statistically this beats everything in the long run" - but if past results don't predict future returns why is this different? What makes everyone so damn confident?*

LiftingandCooking

Because that wasn't a fault or flaw of ETF's, it was a fault of the ETF product (MBS). Here's how Bard simplifies how the ETF would work (Coinbase is the AP). An investor wants to buy shares of the BlackRock Bitcoin spot ETF. The investor places an order to buy shares on an exchange. The exchange sends the order to Coinbase, the authorized participant. Coinbase creates new ETF shares by buying Bitcoin on the open market. Coinbase deposits the Bitcoin into the ETF's trust. Coinbase delivers the new ETF shares to the investor. The opposite process happens when an investor wants to redeem shares of the ETF. An investor wants to redeem shares of the BlackRock Bitcoin spot ETF. The investor places an order to sell shares on an exchange. The exchange sends the order to Coinbase, the authorized participant. Coinbase sells the Bitcoin from the ETF's trust on the open market. Coinbase delivers the proceeds of the sale to the investor. Coinbase cancels the ETF shares. The ETF's NAV is calculated by dividing the total value of the Bitcoin in the trust by the number of ETF shares outstanding. As long as there is enough demand for the ETF, the APs will be willing to create and redeem ETF shares at the NAV, which will keep the ETF's price close to the price of Bitcoin on the open market.

LiftingandCooking

I asked Bard about ETF's. It's unlikely BlackRock is "accumulating" for the ETF. Q: Do ETF's usually buy assets before launching or do they buy when required to as collateral? ETFs do not buy assets before launching. They are created and redeemed on demand by authorized participants (APs), which are large financial institutions that have a contractual relationship with the ETF issuer. When an AP wants to create new ETF shares, it buys the underlying assets of the ETF and deposits them into the ETF's trust. In return, the AP receives new ETF shares that it can then sell to investors. When an AP wants to redeem ETF shares, it sells the underlying assets to the ETF's trust and receives ETF shares in return. This process ensures that the ETF's net asset value (NAV) always remains close to the price of its shares on the open market. It also allows ETFs to be traded intraday, just like stocks. Here is a simplified example of how the ETF creation and redemption process works: An AP wants to create 100,000 new ETF shares. The AP buys $10 million worth of the underlying assets of the ETF, such as stocks or bonds. The AP deposits the underlying assets into the ETF's trust. In return, the AP receives 100,000 new ETF shares. The AP sells the 100,000 new ETF shares to investors on the open market. The opposite process happens when an AP wants to redeem ETF shares. The AP sells the underlying assets to the ETF's trust and receives ETF shares in return. The AP then sells the ETF shares on the open market. The ETF's NAV is calculated by dividing the total value of the underlying assets by the number of ETF shares outstanding. As long as the APs are willing to create and redeem ETF shares at the NAV, the ETF's NAV will remain close to the price of its shares on the open market. Q: did blackrock list an AP in their bitcoin spot etf application to the sec Yes, BlackRock listed Coinbase Global Inc. (COIN) as an authorized participant (AP) in their Bitcoin spot ETF application to the SEC. APs are large financial institutions that have a contractual relationship with the ETF issuer and are responsible for creating and redeeming ETF shares on demand. In their amended application filed on June 29, 2023, BlackRock stated that Coinbase would provide market surveillance in support of their proposed ETF. This means that Coinbase would monitor the underlying Bitcoin market for signs of fraud or manipulation. The SEC has not yet made a decision on BlackRock's Bitcoin spot ETF application. However, the fact that BlackRock has listed an AP and that Coinbase has agreed to provide market surveillance is seen as a positive sign for the application.

Benry26

AP

freistil90

That “exchanges can naked short” a coin is itself in 10 out of 10 cases a problem, you know that, right? The moment an exchange is not 100% neutral and acts as a market maker it’s game over. If CME would do that (ignoring that it is illegal to do so), in a matter of days all positions would migrate away. This whole “broker, exchange and trading firm in one package” is one of the biggest market structure fuck ups we have. But that’s a different problem. First of all, ETFs can also be shorted, just like stocks, via securities lending, or, with a slightly different incentive, via “repo trading”. Nothing stops a bank from doing so. Happens every day. The difference is that the bank needs to collateralise this and can only do this in a strictly regulated market environment - an exchange literally manipulates the market with that. HUGE difference. Second of all, the price regulation happens at the ETF share creation. You have trading firms called “authorised participants”, who buy the underlying securities (in this case BTC) in the market and sell the fund this basket. In exchange, that AP gets a share of the ETF, which the AP will then sell in the open market. If the ETF is overvalued, the AP sells ETF shares back to the fund, gets the basket and sells off the underlying (as long until the tracking error has vanished) and if it’s underpriced, the AP creates new shares by buying the asset in the free market and trade of a share. You have a self-regulating price mechanism there, and this “run shares in an ETF” is exactly what an AP does. If a bank or another fund think it’s a profitable business to do so they just become an AP. The funds are either backed or they are not, this is (and must be, by regulation) stated in their fund material and they are audited on the cent regularly. ETFs that don’t comply are taken out of the market in an instant. Since that market is so competitive, it would also immediately disqualify them, so there’s no incentive to do so either. TLDR: nothingburgers. You’re unfortunately not informed enough on that one.

TheD1ceMan

Wasn't that much money back then, BTC was cheap AP. Water under the bridge

shion005

This [AP article] (https://apnews.com/article/cryptocurrency-technology-lewis-a-kaplan-sam-bankman-fried-manhattan-6afa4e34290577e068f1905f14b87985) mentions family friends pitching in to help.

stylerTyler

A Patek or an AP is fine by me.

giszmo

Try marketing your "access point" on GooglePlay. Bet you won't get above 3 stars due to people complaining about the lack of a wifi AP config in your weird, useless and confusing app.

R4ID

>YOU MEAN ALL THIRTY FIVE UNLs of which six are run by fucking Ripple. Right now you are confusing what a UNL is, what a validator is, and what the Default UNL is. https://livenet.xrpl.org/network/validators Ripple currently runs 1-2 validator on the default UNL of which they dont curate/control the list anymore. (sometimes this one goes offline https://livenet.xrpl.org/validators/nHUon2tpyJEHHYGmxqeGu37cvPYHzrMtUNQFVdCgGNvEkjmCpTqK) and here is their other one https://livenet.xrpl.org/validators/nHU4bLE3EmSqNwfL4AP1UZeTNPrSPPP6FXLKXo2uqfHuvBQxDVKd Once again youve linked an article which DOESNT understand the topic and is incorrect in how the ledger functions. Lets pretend that im a moron like you tho, Lets go and put 6 of Ripples Validators on the dUNL. Consensus requires an 80% super majority on the XRPL. 6 puts them at 17%. - Show me how someone can doublespend on the network - Show me how someone can create more XRP - Show me how someone can censor a user from spending their XRP - Show me how someone can reverse an XRP transaction - Show me how someone can force a code update on the validators - show me how someone can freeze an XRP transaction Show me the centralization please. You cant Because its decentralized and you're too stupid to understand that. Please continue to show how much you dont understand. or keep repeating the lie, Ill always be around to point it out.

ellileon

For me it says the AP Quest is not available anymore.

The_Rise_Of_Kyoshi

You don't need any OP, you need some ETH on the OP chain in your Coinbase wallet. I just started with the free 5$ AP ... converted that to ETH and transfered that onto OP chain in my wallet.

The_Rise_Of_Kyoshi

Finally took the time to do the OP and AP quests on Coinbase. Took me half an hour but I got 50$ so worth

The_Rise_Of_Kyoshi

I had not yet noted that a new Coinbase Learn is available! Everyone get your 5$ AP!

MakeItRelevant

> I don't think it will cause a massive pump I agree, but if the ETF price goes up while BTC and ETH stay the same... the AP will have to buy the underlying asset (BTC and ETH) on the open market at their current prices. Then the AP will deliver these assets to the ETF provider in exchange for shares to sell these shares on the open market at a higher price. Damn, this is confusing... but BlackRock knows the potential it has.

harveytent

Watch out the AP and shit will spot this post and it will be breaking news. “184 billion bitcoin worth $fuckton hacked from bitcoin chain bank” This is a promoted article brought to you by blackrock and the federal reserve

stoicparallax

You’re on point that retail can’t redeem. The “in kind” transactions between issuers and APs take place in the primary market, and are what keep ETFs a low tax. But retail plays in the secondary market, exchanging cash for shares, and are therefore exposed to regular cap gains taxation. For a Blackstone bitcoin ETF, Coinbase could be an AP.. but that would be a new business line for them. I don’t see why JPM, Citi, and the other usual suspects wouldn’t be the APs. Their hedgefund customers are trading BTC today, so I’m sure they’ve got the infrastructure lined up already.

stoicparallax

Every ETF has this, yes. Google “create send redeem”. It allows Authorized Participants (aka a handful selected large institutions) to create new shares when demand warrants it (by exchanging the underlying assets for shares with the ETF issuer) or redeem shares (by exchanging a share for the underling). E.g. In $SPY, an AP provides a basket of the underlying S&P 500 stocks to the issuer in exchange for 1 share of $SPY. This ‘create and redeem’ process is how the net asset value of the ETF remains tethered to the price of the underlying securities / index >> the share price never gets too far away from the price of the underlying, because an AP will swoop in to capture that arbitrage any time it does.

JustStopppingBye

Its not useful, its necessary for blockchains. Its called the oracle problem. >The so-called “oracle problem” demonstrates the issues that come with using blockchain oracles to send inputs to smart contracts. It is critical to make sure that data from an oracle is correct or smart contract execution will produce erroneous results. Also important is the need for trustlessness—having to ‘trust’ oracle operators to reliably provide accurate information robs smart contracts of their most defining qualities. [https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/oracles/](https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/oracles/) What chainlink does is they take multiple feeds and gets an average answer on the data(in a nutshell). Sounds easy but its very complicated and expensive. However, this do this job so well they are now the industry standard for oracle networks. Anyone major in DEFI uses link oracles. >how it gets it's data. [https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2021/ap-chainlink-to-bring-trusted-data-onto-leading-blockchains](https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2021/ap-chainlink-to-bring-trusted-data-onto-leading-blockchains) >"By launching a Chainlink node, which securely connects blockchain environments with external data, AP data will be supplied and sold directly to applications running across various blockchains. The data will be cryptographically signed to verify it is from AP. " Associated press being their "biggest name" for being a data supplier, they run a node for chainlink.