Sep. 23, 2018
Dear Sir or Madam: I wish to add some input on how crypto ETFs and other crypto investments should be handled: re-hypothecation of all kinds of assets has become a very big problem in the investment world. The re-hypothecation of shares, I have read, has resulted in the failure to deliver for some 300 million shares every trading day. That is a problem. We do not want to see the same Bitcoin held by a trustee for Van Eck being sold or lent out to innumerable parties. All of the Bitcoin held by the trustee for Van Eck's planned Bitcoin ETF should be off limits to re-hypothecation. Re-hypothecation will result in fictional liquidity in Bitcoin, suppressing its price. Just like the selling of massive amounts of paper gold being dumped on the COMEX futures exchange results in the suppression of the gold price. No one seriously believes that the suppression of gold (and silver too) are nothing other than pure manipulation being used to keep a lid on gold and silver prices. The evidence of manipulation is voluminous and Deutsche Bank has admitted in civil lawsuits that it engaged in manipulating silver and gold and will name its co-conspirators once the Dept. of Justice gets out of the way. The regulation of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies, because of block-chain technology that will not allow the sale of the same asset more than once, is superior to the present condition of settling trades in the stock and bond markets. The DTCC is light years behind in cleaning up the sorry state of clearing trades for stocks and bonds and massive amounts of fraud are being allowed to take place. Dr. Lawrence Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at MIT, has warned about this in a number of interviews. If the DTCC would adopt block-chain technology to settle trades there would be no failure to deliver and there would be no re-hypothecation of assets, since under rules of block-chain an asset can only be sold once and not innumerable times to different buyers. Selling the same asset to innumerable buyers is nothing but fractional reserve fraud. Stock buyers think they own shares of XYZ company but all they own is a promise to deliver shares of XYZ company when it comes time for the owner of same shares to sell them. What happens when 51% of the "owners" of those XYZ shares want to sell at the same time? Classic Ponzi scheme. John M. Uhlich