Grayscale Stands Ready for ETF Conversion Post-SEC’s No Appeal

• Grayscale reaffirms readiness for potential GBTC to ETF conversion.
• Attention shifts to the Court’s final mandate, expected in the next seven days.
• SEC’s decision not to appeal will likely lead to a review of Grayscale’s application.

Following the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent decision not to seek a rehearing, Grayscale has released a statement reaffirming its readiness for the potential conversion of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) into an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF).

“The Grayscale team remains operationally ready to convert GBTC to an ETF upon the SEC’s approval, and we look forward to sharing more information as soon as practicable,” the statement read. Eleanor Terrett, a journalist at FOX Business, shared and confirmed the statement was directly from Grayscale.

With the 45-day window for seeking an appeal now closed, attention turns to the Court’s final mandate, anticipated to be issued in the next seven days. This mandate will outline how the Court’s decision should be implemented. This could involve instructing the SEC to approve the application or to revisit Grayscale’s proposal, potentially leading to the SEC rejecting the proposal on different grounds.

Nevertheless, the SEC has already decided not to appeal the recent court ruling where it was adjudicated guilty in rejecting Grayscale’s application for a spot Bitcoin ETF, according to a source familiar with the matter revealed two days ago. This decision will likely lead to the SEC reviewing Grayscale’s application, with other asset managers like BlackRock, Fidelity, and Invesco awaiting their own decisions on spot Bitcoin ETF applications by next year.

Grayscale Investments, a leading crypto asset management firm, had sued the SEC, contending that the agency’s approval of surveillance agreements for Bitcoin futures-based ETFs should also apply to their spot ETF proposal. On August 19, the appeals court concurred with Grayscale’s argument, stating that the SEC’s denial of the application was arbitrary and lacking sufficient explanation for the distinction between the two arrangements.