From: dkb1
Sent: October 15, 2016
Subject: File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-30

Securities and Exchange Commission:

I previously submitted comment regarding File Number SR-BatsBZX-2016-30 and have the following addendum in support of my request that the Commission delay approval.

I must apologize for not understanding the SEC process completely and realizing the prospectus might be available online. I found it on the SEC website finally and was surprised to see most of my concerns dealt with in the Risks section (even the botnet theory). As a result, this is likely my final addendum.

I have certainly however invested in ETFs without reading the prospectus but that is my problem.

I do have one problem with the risks as described although the SEC may find the wording within guidelines. I think that when the prospectus uses the term "adversely affect" there should be qualification when the theoretical being discussed requires that the value of holdings goes to zero as in many cases. In those cases "adversely affected" should not be used and instead wording indicating total loss be substituted, e.g. if the blockchain is irrecoverably destroyed then holdings will be totally worthless (as opposed to adversely affected).

Adversely affected is a distortion if total loss is more appropriate.


Thank you.

Dana K. Barish