-
Three prominent financial firms—VanEck, 21Shares, and Canary Capital—have formally challenged the U.S. SEC’s evolving approach to approving crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs), emphasizing concerns over fairness and market growth.
-
The firms argue that the SEC’s departure from the traditional “first-to-file, first-to-approve” policy disadvantages smaller entrants, potentially stifling innovation and limiting investor options in the crypto ETF space.
-
According to a letter shared by James Seyffart on X, the firms urge SEC Chairman Paul Atkins to reconsider the approval framework to foster a more competitive and diverse ETF market.
VanEck, 21Shares, and Canary Capital urge the SEC to restore fair crypto ETF approvals, highlighting risks to market competition and investor choice under current policies.
VanEck and Partners Advocate for Equitable Crypto ETF Approval Processes
The letter from VanEck, 21Shares, and Canary Capital underscores a significant shift in the SEC’s ETF approval methodology, moving away from the historically transparent “first-to-file, first-to-approve” system. This change, they argue, disproportionately favors established firms, creating barriers for smaller or newer entrants seeking to launch innovative crypto ETFs. The firms emphasize that such a dynamic could consolidate market power among a few dominant players, reducing the diversity of investment products available to traders and investors.
Historically, the initial approvals of Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs followed the first-to-file principle, enabling early applicants to capitalize on market demand swiftly. The current deviation from this practice introduces unpredictability and delays, which may discourage emerging firms from entering the market. The letter highlights that a more inclusive approval process would not only promote healthy competition but also expand the range of ETFs, potentially enhancing portfolio diversification and risk management for investors.
Implications of the SEC’s Current ETF Approval Strategy on Market Dynamics
The firms’ concerns extend beyond procedural fairness, touching on broader market implications. By favoring established ETF issuers, the SEC’s approach could inadvertently stifle innovation and limit the availability of niche or specialized crypto investment products. This concentration risks diminishing investor choice and could lead to less competitive pricing and reduced market efficiency.
Moreover, the letter points out that smaller firms often bring unique perspectives and strategies that can drive market evolution. Restricting their ability to launch ETFs may slow the development of new financial instruments tailored to diverse investor needs. The firms advocate for a regulatory environment that balances investor protection with the encouragement of innovation and competition.
Calls for Regulatory Transparency and Enhanced Competition in Crypto ETFs
VanEck, 21Shares, and Canary Capital’s appeal to the SEC also aligns with broader calls for clearer and more predictable crypto regulations. Notably, Commissioner Hester Peirce has publicly supported initiatives aimed at improving regulatory clarity, which could facilitate a more streamlined ETF approval process. The firms suggest that adopting a transparent, merit-based framework would enable issuers to plan and compete effectively, ultimately benefiting the investment community.
In the current landscape, spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs exhibit mixed performance metrics. For example, BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF, despite leading inflows over recent months, reported no inflows in the last 24 hours, reflecting the volatile and competitive nature of the crypto ETF market. This underscores the necessity for regulatory policies that support a dynamic and accessible ETF ecosystem.
Potential Benefits of a Revised SEC Approval Framework
Should the SEC heed these recommendations, the crypto ETF market could experience increased innovation and diversification. Investors might gain access to a broader spectrum of products, enhancing their ability to tailor portfolios according to risk tolerance and investment goals. Additionally, a fairer approval process could stimulate market participation from smaller firms, fostering a more competitive environment that drives down costs and improves product quality.
Furthermore, predictable approval timelines would reduce uncertainty for issuers, encouraging long-term strategic planning and investment in product development. This regulatory clarity is essential for sustaining growth in the rapidly evolving crypto asset sector.
Conclusion
The concerns raised by VanEck, 21Shares, and Canary Capital highlight critical challenges in the current SEC crypto ETF approval process. By advocating for a return to a fair and transparent system, these firms emphasize the importance of fostering competition, innovation, and investor choice within the crypto ETF market. A recalibrated regulatory approach could unlock significant benefits for both issuers and investors, supporting a more vibrant and resilient financial ecosystem.
