Anthony Scaramucci has harshly criticised The Economist’s latest piece for its inaccurate depiction of the emerging Bitcoin ETF industry.
The aforementioned article caused a stir among proponents of cryptocurrencies as it cast doubt on the viability of Bitcoin ETFs after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finally approved them after a protracted process.
Known for his optimistic position on cryptocurrencies, Scaramucci questioned what success looks like if a $5 billion ETF debut is considered a letdown, challenging the negative viewpoint.
“What’s good if a $5 billion ETF launch goes wrong? If it were anything else than Bitcoin “He thought to himself.
The Economist’s pessimistic outlook
After years of waiting and a spike in the price of Bitcoin, the SEC approved 11 applications for Bitcoin ETFs. The Economist’s piece follows the process leading up to this historic event.
The research highlights the less than ideal beginning for these ETFs, pointing out that the price of Bitcoin has dropped by 7% since the approval and that inflows and outflows from the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust and the recently introduced ETFs have nearly equaled one another.
It highlights key distinctions in investor behaviour and market dynamics between the potential of Bitcoin ETFs and the past performance of gold ETFs.
According to the study, Bitcoin ETFs might not have the same revolutionary impact as gold ETFs.
Treading carefully
According to Bloomberg, Rob Pettman, EVP of wealth management solutions at LPL Financial, isn’t joining the trend just yet.
Rather of adding these new spot Bitcoin ETFs to LPL’s roster, he is pressing the hold button and demanding a three-month investigation into them.
This measured and circumspect action reflects the general feeling in the financial community, where enthusiasm for ETFs is subdued by a persistent concern about their viability.
