Last week, the SEC the listing application of two ETFS tracking the performance of Bitcoin based on the view that the ETFs did not satisfy various listing requirements under Section 6 of the Exchange Act that are intended to ensure fair pricing. Given the SEC's objections to those ETFs, it is not clear on what basis the SEC might warm up to a carbon-neutral ETF.

Given the size of the Bitcoin market and the fact that futures trading of Bitcoin has been going on for awhile without problems, it would seem likely at this point that the SEC's refusal to permit the listing of Bitcoin ETFs is founded on a desire to not encourage further retail investment, including indirect investment, in the product. Although one can be sympathetic to the SEC's worries as to retail investors, the SEC is not supposed to serve as a gatekeeper on the wisdom of investments.…

It's not clear whether FSOC, as presently structured, can fulfill its intended role of being a watchdog for risks that might otherwise escape notice. Given that its membership is drawn exclusively, or almost so, from one party, it arguably serves more as an echo chamber for the positions of that party. A financial report that discusses inflation, rises in the debt level, and the shortening of the average term of government securities, but does not tie all those events to government spending…

FINRA has generally been seeking to limit relationships between registered representatives and their customers that are outside of the business and supervision of the firm, and that may provide a benefit to the representative. See, e.g., . These regulatory limitations and prohibitions are particularly significant because FINRA and other financial regulators are concerned with any aging customer population who may be vulnerable to overreach by their agents.