On Thursday, investment company Jacobi Asset Management announced it would launch a Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) on the Euronext Amsterdam Exchange in July.
Jacobi to Launch Europe’s First Bitcoin ETF
The firm’s official announcement noted that the new fund is called the Jacobi Bitcoin ETF and will trade under the ticker BCOIN. The product will allow investors to gain indirect exposure to the performance of Bitcoin.
Jacobi said it partnered with other firms, including Flow Traders and Fidelity Digital Assets, the crypto arm of leading asset management company Fidelity Investments, to launch the new ETF.
Fidelity Digital Assets will provide custodial services, while Flow Traders – a leading global market maker and proprietary trading firm – alongside DRW – a diversified trading firm – will act as market makers to facilitate trading.
“The Jacobi Bitcoin ETF will enable investors to access the underlying performance of this exciting asset class via a well-established and trusted investment structure,” said Jamie Khurshid, CEO of Jacobi.
Upon launch, the Jacobi Bitcoin ETF will become Europe’s Bitcoin exchange-traded fund, a significant milestone for the cryptocurrency industry considering the recent market crisis.
SEC Rejects Grayscale Bitcoin Spot ETF
While Europe is on the verge of welcoming its first spot Bitcoin ETF, the United States continues to reject such applications, with the latest example being the Grayscale Bitcoin Spot ETF proposal.
Earlier today, Crypto Potato reported that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) declined Grayscale’s filing to convert its flagship fund to a spot Bitcoin ETF.
Grayscale, the world’s largest digital asset management firm, was optimistic that its application would get a nod from the SEC because the firm believed it had checked all the boxes. However, that wasn’t the case as the regulator noted that the proposal failed to meet the standards designed to prevent fraud and market manipulations.
Disappointed by the SEC’s decision, Grayscale has filed a lawsuit against the watchdog for violating the Administrative Procedure Act and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company believes the Commission has failed to “apply consistent treatment to similar investment vehicles.”