Cryptocurrency Derivatives, Funds and Advisers: Key Considerations Under U.S. Commodity Laws (Part 3: Why Commodity Interests Are of Interest)

This post is the third in a series that outlines key considerations for investment funds and their advisers regarding the application of the U.S. commodity laws to cryptocurrency derivatives. This post is intended to be a primer on the topic and is not legal advice. You should consult with your counsel regarding the application of the U.S. commodity laws to your particular facts and circumstances.

In Part 1, we focused on the status of cryptocurrencies as commodities and how that status relates to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”). In Part 2, we provided an overview of the regulation of commodities and the commodity markets under the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”), explaining in particular that while the authority to prevent fraud and manipulation may apply to any transaction in interstate commerce that involves a commodity, the CFTC’s “substantive regulation” applies only if a transaction involves a “commodity interest“.

Here, in Part 3, we explain why the concept of a commodity interest can be described as a “linchpin” to the substantive regulation  of CPOs and CTAs.

Continue Reading

Cryptocurrency Derivatives, Funds and Advisers: Key Considerations Under U.S. Commodity Laws (Part 2: The Regulation of Commodities – Quite Substantial, Even If Not Substantive)

This post is the second in a series that outlines key considerations for investment funds and their advisers regarding the application of the U.S. commodity laws to cryptocurrency derivatives. This posting is intended to be a primer on the topic and is not legal advice. You should consult with your counsel regarding the application of the U.S. commodity laws to your particular facts and circumstances.

In Part 1, we focused on the status of cryptocurrencies as commodities and how that status relates to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”). Here, in Part 2, we provide an overview of the regulation of commodities and the commodity markets under the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”).

Continue Reading

Cryptocurrency Derivatives, Funds and Advisers: Key Considerations Under U.S. Commodity Laws (Part 1 – Cryptos Are Commodities (Except When They Are Not))

In this multi-part posting, we outline key considerations for investment funds and their advisers regarding the application of the U.S commodity laws to cryptocurrency derivatives.  This posting is intended to be a primer on the topic and is not legal advice.  You should consult with your counsel regarding the application of the U.S. commodity laws to your particular facts and circumstances.

First, a few words about our use of the word “cryptocurrency”… In this series of postings, we use the word cryptocurrency (and often the term “crypto”) to refer to traditional virtual currencies, like BTC and ETH, as well as tokens related to a particular software product development initiative (i.e., “coins” sold in an initial coin offering or “ICO”).  We recognize that there are different classifications of cryptos among different groups of market participants; however, when we say “crypto,” we mean cryptocurrency in the broadest sense (inclusive of virtual currencies and tokens).

Having dealt with the initial definitional matter, we now turn to the substance of this Part 1 – Cryptos are Commodities (Except When They Are Not).

Continue Reading

SEC Staff Rejects Bitcoin Futures Based ETFs – Commission Stays Rejections Pending Its Review

For those of you who have been following along thus far, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets (“SEC Staff”) have been wrestling since December 2017 with whether to approve or disapprove exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) that invest in bitcoin futures contracts.  On August 22, 2018, the SEC Staff decided to reject three proposals that included a total of nine bitcoin futures ETFs, possibly.  Just one day later, the SEC issued stays of all three rejections and elected to review the SEC Staff’s decisions.  With no clear decision, it is worth looking at the reasons for the SEC Staff’s rejection of the three proposals, particularly in light of the SEC’s recent split decision on the rejection of a bitcoin ETF (the “Bitcoin ETF”).

The three rejection orders came against two proposals by NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and one by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX”).  The ETFs themselves would predominantly hold bitcoin futures contracts in lieu of holding “physical” bitcoin.  The result would create exposure to the price fluctuations of bitcoin, but the futures-based ETFs would seek to invest in a more “traditional” asset (i.e., a futures contract) that is traded on established futures markets such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and Cboe Options Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”). Continue Reading

Treasury Department Proposes a New Rule for Data Collection of Centrally Cleared Repo Transactions

Last month, on July 10, 2018, the Office of Financial Research (“OFR”), an agency of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, proposed a new rule that would require collection of data with respect to centrally cleared repurchase agreement transactions (“repos”) (the “Proposed Rule”).  The proposal stems from a multi-year effort by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”) to expand and make permanent the collection of repo data.

The Proposed Rule seeks to enhance the ability of FSOC and OFR to identify and monitor risks to financial stability, as well as support the calculation of certain reference rates for repos.  Particularly for the calculation of certain reference rates, OFR asserted that the new data from the Proposed Rule would support and enhance the calculation of both the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) and the Broad General Collateral Rate (“BGCR”). Continue Reading

Dissent on the SEC’s Re-Disapproval of a Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Product

On July 26, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) issued an order disapproving a proposed rule change that would have allowed for a bitcoin exchange-traded product (“ETP”) (the “Order”).  However, the Order was not unanimous amongst the SEC’s Commissioners.  Commissioner Hester M. Peirce issued a stand-alone dissent against the Order, arguing that the SEC mischaracterized their worries with the ETP and that the Commission was teetering on stifling the innovation of new investment products in the United States (in this context-bitcoin).

The Order Satisfies the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

First, Commissioner Peirce disagreed with the Commission and argued that the proposal for a rule change to allow for the bitcoin ETP (the “Proposal”) satisfies certain requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  The Exchange Act requires the SEC to evaluate whether the rules of a national securities exchange (such as Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”)) are designed to prevent fraud and protect investors.  Commissioner Pierce argued that the SEC erroneously focuses on the characteristics underlying the spot market for bitcoin rather than whether the rules of BZX are designed to prevent fraud and protect investors.  For Commissioner Pierce, BZX and its rules could adequately play the role of watch dog over the underlying bitcoin spot markets. Continue Reading

SEC Denies for the Second Time a Proposal for a Bitcoin Exchange-Trade Product

On July 26, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) issued an order, by a 3-1 vote, disapproving a proposed rule change (the “Proposal”) that would have allowed for a bitcoin exchange-traded product (“ETP”) (the “Order”).  In the Order, the SEC re-asserted many of its prior concerns and reasons for denying the same proposal for a bitcoin ETP back in March 2017. Continue Reading

SEC Requests Comment on Bitcoin Futures ETFs

On March 23, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order instituting proceedings to determine whether it will approve or disapprove a proposal for Bitcoin futures exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) (the “Order”).  In December 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed a rule change proposal to allow for the creation of ETFs that invest in Bitcoin futures contracts and potentially other Bitcoin related investments.  In January 2018, the SEC extended its review of the proposal, and with the Order, it now has instituted formal review proceedings and is seeking public comment.  Continue Reading

Bitcoin Futures Volatility and Total Volume Since the Start of 2018

According to recent data provided by CBOE and CME Group, the volatility and total volume of bitcoin futures in 2018 have been in a gradual decline.  As displayed in the chart below, the Cboe bitcoin futures contract (XBT) volatility for the lead month declined in each month to begin 2018.  In addition, according to data as of a May 22, 2018 trading date, the trading volume for CME bitcoin futures contracts (BTC) in prospective lead months is also low, with as few as 5 trades for September 2018 contracts.  There have been a few instances of volume surges such as in late April when the average daily volume of XBT rose to 8800 in the single-most active session of the CBOE Global Market, according to CBOE.  However, as shown in the final chart below with data from CME Group as of May 22, 2018, the daily exchange volume of bitcoin futures contracts has remained below 6000 for the last month with one exception. Continue Reading

The Fed’s Repo Rates Are Here

On April 3, 2018 the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“Fed”) started publishing its three repo rates: the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), the Broad General Collateral Rate (BGCR) and the Tri-Party General Collateral Rate (TGCR). For an overview of differences between the composition of each of the rates please refer to our prior post.

Previously, in March, the Fed released “a time series of the volume-weighted mean rate of the primary dealer’s overnight Treasury general collateral repo activity. . .” which it calculated from its surveys of the primary dealers. The Fed also released indicative historical rates for the SOFR rate going back to August 2014. It also indicated it was going to investigate providing a longer historical period for the SOFR rate. The historical data appears to be a response to comments received during the request for comment phase where three commenters requested historical data for SOFR in order to assist market participants in structuring margin requirements on derivative instruments that reference SOFR and assist in comparisons to other benchmarks. Continue Reading

LexBlog