A federal judge has overturned the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to deny an exchange-traded fund (ETF) offering from Grayscale Investments through its Bitcoin Trust, but many experts have pointed out the court ruling will not automatically lead to the first spot Bitcoin ETF in the country.
In an Aug. 29 decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Neomi Rao supported Grayscale’s position that its proposed Bitcoin (BTC) ETF was “materially similar” to Bitcoin futures exchange-traded products already approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for trading. The court largely ruled that the SEC’s justification of denying Grayscale’s Bitcoin ETF on the grounds it was not “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” was insufficient, and the matter will return to the commission for review.
THIS JUST IN: The D.C. Circuit ruled 3-0 in favor of Grayscale and $GBTC. This is a monumental step forward for all who have been advocating for Bitcoin exposure through the added protections of the ETF wrapper. Read the decision: https://t.co/ulAtcsad2Gpic.twitter.com/BNZABvM7tw
To date, the SEC has denied all spot crypto ETF offerings in the U.S., though many applications are currently being reviewed, including those from BlackRock, ARK Invest, Bitwise Asset Management, VanEck, WisdomTree, Invesco and Galaxy Digital, Fidelity, and Valkyrie. The commission has the means to keep delaying a decision or otherwise pushing the final deadline for approval on the majority of the aforementioned applications until March 2024.
At the time of publication, the SEC had not publicly commented on the appeals court decision but reportedly said it would be reviewing the case to determine its next steps. The commission will likely have the opportunity to appeal the decision, but many experts have claimed that the initial Grayscale victory could pave the way for eventual approval.
“Despite the inevitable SEC appeal, to our mind there is no doubt now, spot BTC ETFs are coming to the U.S.,” said Tim Bevan, CEO at ETC Group. “We don’t believe the SEC will act as kingmaker and the most likely outcome is a block approval of applications that meet requirements, probably in Q1 ’24.”
Lolli CEO and co-founder Alex Adelman said the appeals court ruling would “put new pressure on the SEC” in its justification for rejecting spot Bitcoin ETF applications. He added the BTC price rally following the news could be interpreted as a “vote of confidence” for spot investment vehicles linked to Bitcoin:
“Now is the time for the U.S. to embrace innovation by making bitcoin available to investors through exchange-based products or risk falling behind global powers that are moving faster to claim this advantage.”
A spokesperson for the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) told Cointelegraph the ruling opened the door to a wider range of investors looking to offer a spot BTC vehicle in the United States. According to the CCI, “spot bitcoins ETFs are now closer to a potential launch.”
Some have asked whether they could revoke the bitcoin futures ETFs, highly unlikely in our view, esp given their recent openness to Ether futures ETFs. In the end, I know it and you know it and even animals know it- the best move is to just approve the damn things already. https://t.co/fZCOIur4of
The next steps for either Grayscale moving forward with its application or the SEC appealing the decision are unclear. The asset manager could refile with the SEC, aiming to make the spot investment vehicle application more like that of a Bitcoin futures-linked ETF. Experts are reporting the SEC also has the option of filing for an “en banc” hearing in which all judges on the D.C. circuit — rather than the three which ruled on the Grayscale appeal — would hear the matter.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he will defend the decisions made in the budget “all day long” amid anger from farmers over inheritance tax changes.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced last month in her key speech that from April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.
Sir Keir defended the budget as he gave his first speech as prime minister at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno, North Wales, where farmers have been holding a tractor protest outside.
Sir Keir admitted: “We’ve taken some extremely tough decisions on tax.”
He said: “I will defend facing up to the harsh light of fiscal reality. I will defend the tough decisions that were necessary to stabilise our economy.
“And I will defend protecting the payslips of working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, and investing in the future of Britain and the future of Wales. Finally, turning the page on austerity once and for all.”
He also said the budget allocation for Wales was a “record figure” – some £21bn for next year – an extra £1.7bn through the Barnett Formula, as he hailed a “path of change” with Labour governments in Wales and Westminster.
And he confirmed a £160m investment zone in Wrexham and Flintshire will be going live in 2025.
Advertisement
‘PM should have addressed the protesters’
Among the hundreds of farmers demonstrating was Gareth Wyn Jones, who told Sky News it was “disrespectful” that the prime minister did not mention farmers in his speech.
He said “so many people have come here to air their frustrations. He (Starmer) had an opportunity to address the crowd. Even if he was booed he should have been man enough to come out and talk to the people”.
He said farmers planned to deliver Sir Keir a letter which begins with “‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.
Mr Wyn Jones told Sky News the government was “destroying” an industry that was already struggling.
“They’re destroying an industry that’s already on its knees and struggling, absolutely struggling, mentally, emotionally and physically. We need government support not more hindrance so we can produce food to feed the nation.”
He said inheritance tax changes will result in farmers increasing the price of food: “The poorer people in society aren’t going to be able to afford good, healthy, nutritious British food, so we have to push this to government for them to understand that enough is enough, the farmers can’t take any more of what they’re throwing at us.”
Mr Wyn Jones disputed the government’s estimation that only 500 farming estates in the UK will be affected by the inheritance tax changes.
“Look, a lot of farmers in this country are in their 70s and 80s, they haven’t handed their farms down because that’s the way it’s always been, they’ve always known there was never going to be inheritance tax.”
On Friday, Sir Keir addressed farmers’ concerns, saying: “I know some farmers are anxious about the inheritance tax rules that we brought in two weeks ago.
“What I would say about that is, once you add the £1m for the farmland to the £1m that is exempt for your spouse, for most couples with a farm wanting to hand on to their children, it’s £3m before anybody pays a penny in inheritance tax.”
Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
But analysis this week said a typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.
The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.
To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.