please explain to me how further delay of something that people are eagerly anticipating for a boost in prices is positive. Clearly their last submission was not approved or they would not need to submit another one. Clearly this pushes back the timeline. At best it's neutral if you were not expecting an imminent launch.
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter
The whole news article was complete misrepresentation and omitted most of the facts. That is spinning ... or just piss poor journalism, probably the latter

Here is a diff of this latest amended proposal (version 5) and the previous one (version 4):
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qxgah/diff_of_the_newest_winklevoss_filing_here/
They update some data about the state of bitcoin (e.g. adoption) and change the State where the fund is incorporated, from New York to Delaware. Would this change improve the chances of approval?
The plan is still to trade the fund on NASDAQ anyway.
Could the state change be tied to the licensing issue. Delaware is the traditional state for incorporation so that would normally be neutral, but the fact that they changed it this late in the game suggests something is the matter.
yup,they don't like it atm,changes required before approval
Yea, and that is not a small change at all. That is a structural change, not just shifting a little bit of wording around. Tough to know because we aren't prevue to the discussions, but just my two cents as a lawyer.
as you know a couple of words mean a lot,crossing the t's etc, i'm sure they want it to proceed but with what limitations
IMO this change proves the ETF will be approved sooner or later.
How the f--- did you come to that conclusion, exactly? They've fundamentally changed their filing -- they didn't just cross a "t" or dot an "i." No, they subjected themselves to an entirely different state of incorporation at the umpteenth hour. Logical reasoning is not a core criterion for becoming a Bitcoiner, is it?
If the SEC had decided they wouldn't approve a math-based assets ETF they would've made it clear to the Winklevoss instead of suggesting corrections to their filings.
Logic would suggest that no amount of countless lawyers hours at a hefty price should be spent further pursuing a hopeless goal. Clearly the Winks have some indications that following due process their project has a chance and will ultimately be approved.
I'm glad that someone gets this

