In a strongly-worded letter addressed to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler, a group of prominent U.S. Congressmen are calling for the immediate approval of spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). The bipartisan letter, signed by representatives Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), Mike Flood (R-Neb.), Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), and Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.), emphasizes the urgency of expanding access to Bitcoin investment options and highlights the potential benefits for American investors.
"We write to ensure the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not continue to discriminate against spot bitcoin exchange traded products (ETPs)," the letter states. "The SEC is responsible for making certain that products that comply with investor protections are made available to investors."
The lawmakers assert that spot Bitcoin ETFs would offer a regulated and secure way for investors to gain exposure to the world's largest cryptocurrency. Such ETFs would allow investors to buy and sell Bitcoin on traditional stock exchanges, simplifying the investment process and potentially attracting a broader range of participants.
One of the key points made in the letter is the need for regulatory clarity. The Congressmen argue that the absence of a spot Bitcoin ETF has led to investors seeking exposure through unregulated and potentially riskier avenues. Approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs would provide a clear regulatory framework for these investments.
"A regulated spot bitcoin ETP would provide increased protection for investors by making access to bitcoin safer and more transparent. Congress has a duty to ensure the SEC approves investment products that meet the requirements set out by Congress," says the letter.
The SEC seems to have responded to this call from Congress by delaying Cathie Wood's ARK Invest application early, which a decision was not due until November 11.
More information on the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF race can be found here.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
