Blockchain speed bumps

by Alex Iby for StockSnap
by Alex Iby for StockSnap

Sigh, thought so.

The DTCC (the US post-trade giant) hosted a fintech symposium earlier this week, in which blockchain technology was one of the main points of discussion. According to CoinDesk’s report, the atmosphere – as evidenced by the event’s keynotes and panels – could be described as “reserved enthusiasm”, “hopeful realism”, or perhaps even “putting on a brave face”.

Several of the speakers pointed out the complexity of the systems currently in place, the limitations of blockchain technology, the risk inherent in public blockchains and the colossal task of getting regulators around the world to agree on a constructive way to protect users.

One intriguing detail revealed is that the unveiling of the DTCC’s new platform will be delayed. The original press release promised a launch in early 2018. CEO Michael Bodson let drop in a LinkedIn post last December that it would be late 2018. Now it’s looking like it will be in 2019, at least a year late. This is where the sigh comes in, because it will probably end up being even later than that.

I wrote about the scope and advantages of the DTCC project a few months ago, but to recap: the decision to go with a blockchain-powered platform was based largely on the need for 1) transparency – where all participants could share the “golden copy”, the main database from which others draw their information; and 2) efficiency – reducing settlement times, and streamlining administration with smart contracts. The use-case makes sense.

But blockchain is complicated. Securities markets are complicated, particularly derivatives. And project planning is complicated, especially when you’re dealing with new territory and uncertain infrastructure.

The DTCC’s project is far from the only one that has suffered setbacks. Going through the slew of announced banking blockchain projects from the past year, the number of missed deadlines is overwhelming. Many projects start out with high hopes and effusive press releases, only to get quietly shelved as the obstacles prove to be expensive.

Often it’s because limitations of the technology are discovered as building progresses. The technology is young, after all. The DTCC platform was originally to be based on ethereum (not even four years old), with Solidity as the smart contract language. Yet the team soon discovered that the DTCC application needed something more sophisticated than Solidity would allow. While the firm has not (to my knowledge) specified what the new solution would look like, it is an investor in Digital Asset Holdings, which has developed a new smart contract language.

Sometimes setbacks originate where regulation and applicability meet, an area fraught with uncertainty. Getting the authorities to sign off on something that hasn’t been built yet is a challenge. Beyond that you also have the need to agree on regulatory reporting requirements.

Technology changes are extremely difficult, and delays are common. The risk is that the longer the delay, the more complicated the project gets as additional requirements are inserted by regulators or stakeholders, and as technology moves on. With delays come additional costs, and there may come a point when the change is no longer a good business idea. The infamous upgrade of the London Stock Exchange system in the 1980s accumulated a delay of over 10 years – in the end, it was scrapped after sinking over £70 million (£140 million in today’s money). Could the same thing happen here?

I hope not. The work being done is important, and points to a new financial system that has the potential to solve current roadblocks and cost barriers. We can’t underestimate the knowledge contributed to the blockchain sector, even if the work ends up being private (although the DTCC’s technology partner Axoni has said that it plans to open source the project once completed).

The main lesson is to not get giddy with excitement over big pronouncements – they are far from a victory. They are, however, a validation of an idea, and a commitment to further the sector’s development. We also need to be able to take setbacks in our stride, lower our expectations and not point to delays as evidence that we are now in the “disappointment” phase of the hype cycle. Even if the high-flyers end up pivoting, the amount of focus and progress in the sector shows that others will be willing to pick up the mantle and try a different, perhaps more modest approach.

Given the strong amount of work still going on, and the constructive tone of high-level conversations – such as those at the DTCC event – we can take the delays as breathing space, and settle back to watch hard-won progress slowly emerge. Better late than never.

Lessons learned: Taurus and the ASX blockchain integration

image by Tamarcus Brown via StockSnap
image by Tamarcus Brown via StockSnap

London, 1993. A big decision was about to be made, that would send ripple effects across Europe and forward through time, acting as a warning against ambition and consensus.

For the past 10 years, the London Stock Exchange had been working on a significant upgrade of its securities settlement system. With paper-based systems groaning under the 1980s boom in share ownership, pressure was building not only from nimbler competitors but also from the regulators across the Channel. If London wanted to maintain its role as the continent’s money centre, it needed to upgrade.

The new system was called Taurus, and its goal was to remove as much physical documentation from the system as possible. It also planned a move to rolling settlement, reducing the payment period for equities from three weeks to three days.

Yet things were not going well. The first sign was the rhythm of missed deadlines.

From the outset, the project was complicated. It aimed to include as many sector stakeholders as possible, in spite of conflicting interests. Institutional investors wanted a fast, reliable service, while private investors wanted lower costs. Also, the existing registrars (dominated by large banks) were given a say in the development of a centralized registry, even though it would undermine their business model. Well into the development cycle, they torpedoed the idea.

What went wrong?

In the haste to get development off the ground, the project allegedly started without a clear roadmap. And delays gave more time for the various stakeholders to add requirements.

Even with clear and stable stewardship, that scale of development would have been tough. Yet the project management structure was not clearly defined, and the lack of centralized control meant that interlocking pieces were being developed out of sync, with sections of the process at different testing stages, while other functions had not yet been designed.

Also, given the long lead time (which ended up being more than double the initial estimate), the system – if launched – would already have been behind the competition from day one.

The final straw came when an investigation in 1993 revealed that completion would take another two to three years, at double the cost-to-date.

The decision was taken to scrap the whole project. The exchange’s investment of over £70 million (over £140 million in today’s money) was lost. The London Stock Exchange handed over responsibility for the development of a new stock trading system to the Bank of England, and its CEO resigned.

It wasn’t just the colossal waste of money and the damage to its reputation that made many fear for the exchange’s future. Hundreds of brokers had based their systems development on the assumption that Taurus would be the main platform, and thousands of employees had been trained. The total cost to London’s financial centre was estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of pounds.

Of course, it’s easy to see in hindsight where things went wrong. And it’s easy to believe that today, big systemic projects would be managed with different principles.

While that may be the case, the fate of Taurus serves to highlight the colossal complexity of introducing a new systemic platform. Throw in a technology that has yet to be tested “in the field”, and you have a potential powder keg of risk.

All change

I’m talking about the decision of Australia’s primary securities exchange, ASX, to upgrade its clearing and settlement platform to one based on distributed ledger technology.

Announced late last year, the news sent waves of excitement through the blockchain sector – it would be one of the first major public-facing applications of the technology, which many have touted as having the potential to decentralize finance.

Introduced with bitcoin, the blockchain offers a way of sharing data that removes the need for validation from a central authority. The elimination of redundancies and the speed with which information can be transmitted and acted on present significant cost reductions, especially intriguing in an era of diminishing margins and increasing competition in the financial sector.

It’s not yet clear whether the technology that ASX will use (developed with blockchain startup Digital Asset) will technically be a blockchain, in which information is stored in blocks that are irrevocably linked to previous blocks, ensuring data integrity. The official press release referred to “digital ledgers”, and while the two terms are often used interchangeably, some distributed ledgers don’t rely on linked blocks to share and verify inputs and outputs. However, since the boundaries of the new technology are being blurred as the concept evolves, the announcement was treated as a triumph by blockchain sector participants – official, public validation of the potential benefits.

Be careful

And yet, it is by no means the windfall that the headlines proclaimed.

First, it isn’t happening anytime soon. At the end of March, the ASX will reveal a potential live date for the new platform – it will most likely be years away. We won’t get a clear indication of the expected timing until the end of June.

And, as we saw with Taurus, in complex undertakings, deadlines are often extended. Hopefully the new system will be revealed within a much shorter timeframe than the failed British attempt’s estimated 13 years…

If it gets revealed at all. The ASX platform does need to be replaced – known as CHESS, it is 25 years old and is struggling to keep up with newer and nimbler competitors. But the decision to build on top of a relatively untested technology with uncertain scaling and bottlenecks is a brave one. And few development projects progress without setbacks.

It’s fair to assume that the planning will be meticulous and thorough. But will it manage to avoid the pitfalls of overwhelming systemic change?

Learning from the mistakes of Taurus will help. But the leap forward in technology with this development adds a new layer of complexity.

A large part of the problem will be managing expectations. While “blockchain” has been hailed as “the next industrial revolution”, we are not going to see a new decentralized stock exchange emerge before our eyes. As far as the public is concerned, things will continue pretty much the way they are.

For the financial and technology sectors, though, it is a big deal. If all goes well, back office costs will be reduced, new efficiencies will be explored and distributed ledger technologists will learn much from the real-world rollout.

The true change, however, will come years down the road, as other exchanges around the world take a look at their own clearing and settlement processes, as regulators encourage compatibility and connectivity, and as frictionless cross-border trading finally begins to look like a possibility.

But first, the ASX system needs to be successfully launched. And, as we’ve seen, it’s nowhere near as easy as it sounds. While the decision to migrate a country’s main securities settlement and clearing platform to a distributed ledger is good news for the blockchain sector, it is too soon to celebrate.

Blockchain and the puzzle of the Kazakh bond issue

astana kazakhstan

A few weeks ago, CoinDesk published an article about a blockchain project in Kazakhstan. The central bank is testing a blockchain-based mobile app that will allow investors to buy central bank debt directly, without passing through a broker.

I puzzled over this, as I couldn’t figure out why they needed a blockchain for that. One issuer and a wide range of buyers doesn’t need a blockchain. A database could handle that.

Blockchains aren’t designed for vertical systems, with one entity at the top.

The article went on to say that long term, the platform could be used for IPOs.

Ah, there you have it. Other entities could be invited to join the platform and use it for issuing securities, either equities or debt.

So, is Kazakhstan effectively creating a new financial market? The advantages for using blockchain technology for that are relatively obvious (fewer middlemen, faster settlement, lower costs, greater transparency).

But mobile-based?

A while ago the government of Kenya used the M-Pesa mobile money system to issue a bond. That trial was intriguing in that it facilitated financial inclusion by offering citizens with very little money the opportunity to not only earn a return on the little they have, but also to purchase their first saving product. The minimum investment was KSh3,000 (approximately $30), and it was open to all Kenyans with an M-Pesa mobile money account, over half the population.

But, the government didn’t use a blockchain. There was no need to, and not just because they already had an efficient distribution in place. They also didn’t need to because the relationship was one-to-many (issuer to buyers).

Blockchains are good for many-to-many relationships. If the Kazakh project does indeed end up including other issuers, the trial makes sense. But for now, it doesn’t. Blockchain’s potential won’t be tested with one central issuer.

It also doesn’t make sense to combine IPOs with debt issuance – the two have very different mechanisms and regulation. Inviting other issuers to take advantage of the new processes would have efficiencies – but that doesn’t seem to be a main priority.

So, despite the declared expansion intentions, I still found the incongruity puzzling.

Then an “out there” thought occurred to me. Perhaps what the central bank really wants is for the bonds to circulate. On a blockchain platform it would be relatively simple. Holders trade, and the ownership changes, smoothly and without intermediaries. The ease, especially on mobile, could encourage liquidity and boost circulation.

Why would a central bank want its bonds to circulate?

Perhaps so that they could become a type of currency, exchanged in payment for services received from other institutional platform participants – utilities, for instance (electricity bill?), education (a masters’ degree?) or even taxes.

There a blockchain platform starts to make a lot of sense. Regulated institutions would be “invited” to “open an account” to which bonds could be sent. Bondholders could treat their securities as a type of bank account, earning interest when they are still and being accepted in exchange for something else (fiat money or services) when they circulate.

Using central bank debt as money? Well, isn’t that what we’re doing now, with bills and coins?

Paying with gold, blockchain-style

gold

Hopping on the “digital gold” trend (with possibly two blockchain-based gold exchanges coming on line this year) and the “initial coin offering” (ICO) trend, last week Dubai-based OneGram announced that it was planning to offer a digital coin backed by physical gold.

The aim is to raise $500m in capital through a digital token offering. If achieved, it would be the largest amount raised to date via an initial coin sale.

It has a good chance, and not just for the prevailing winds – ICO sales have been enjoying a surge in investor demand, and the unusual structure and potentially attractive fundamentals of this one could pique interest.

What makes this ICO especially interesting is that it is the first digital token to comply with the rules of Islamic finance. Last November, a clarification of Sharia law qualified digital gold assets as approved investment vehicles as long as they were backed by physical gold.

The potential market is huge: on top of the usual pool of investors, for the first time a digital token will be accessible to Muslims. A recent survey by the Pew Research Institute estimates that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and total Islamic finance assets reach around $2 trillion.

The plan is to issue 12.44 million tokens, called OneGramCoins. Each will be backed by one gram of gold, and the token price will mirror the gold price. At current market levels, that should bring in over $550 million.

According to founder Ibrahim Mohammed, 50% of the offering has been already been committed. The public sale will start on May 21 and run until September 22 (unless, of course, it sells out sooner, as several other recent token sales have done).

An interesting twist is the objective of creating a payments solution around the token. The company is creating a merchant service program which will make it easy for retailers to accept OneGramCoins (as well as bitcoin and perhaps a couple of other top cryptocurrencies).

Ironically, this seems like a fusion of the old and the new: a modern technology allows customers to return to the ancient tradition of paying for things with gold.

Could Brexit encourage blockchain development?

by Rob Bye via Stocksnap
by Rob Bye via Stocksnap

The FT reported yesterday on the intensifying staring match between the EU and the UK over financial services.

London has for some time been in danger of losing its position as the world’s clearing center for euro-denominated derivatives. The city’s clearing houses handle up to three-quarters of the global euro-denominated derivatives market.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has long argued that oversight of euro clearing services would be easier if they were relocated to within the Eurozone, and in 2011 issued a policy reflecting this. The UK took the case to the European Court, which eventually sided with the UK. The reason given was not because geographical restrictions would discriminate against some member states (the UK’s main argument), but because the ECB’s role is to supervise payment systems, not securities settlement. The ECB still alleges that settlement oversight is essential for payment system stability.

Now that Britain will soon no longer be an EU member, the battle lines are shifting. The European Commission (EC) is preparing legislation for June that will impose geographical restrictions on euro-based clearing. An interesting twist is that the EC is not waiting until Brexit becomes a reality.

The policy, due for publication tomorrow, moves to extend the ECB’s role to include supervision of clearing houses if they provide “critical capital market functions” (such as derivatives swaps). If this goes ahead, it will mean that either the activity needs to relocate, or the UK has to allow ECB supervision on British territory (which it’s unlikely to be happy with).

If the activity has to relocate, the fallout will be considerable, and the impact could be felt around the world. Euro-denominated derivatives clearing accounts for about one third of the global interest rate swaps market.

It’s probable that some clearing houses will prefer to wind down than move (CME Group recently decided to pull out of London due to lack of profitability). The larger ones may find that they lose clients. Either would be enough to contract medium-term liquidity in the market.

Short-term, the potential problem is more serious. Clearing houses reduce liquidity risk in financial markets by standing between two traders in a transaction. They also increase transparency by being in a position to publish the price at which a trade executed.

Disrupt those functions, or even temporarily interrupt them, and you increase systemic risk. You also increase the cost of clearing, as economies of scale are reduced.

Some clearing houses are looking into blockchain applications as a way to reduce costs and enhance liquidity. In 2015 a group including settlement giants CME Group, Euroclear and LCH.Clearnet formed a working body to discuss how the technology might be used to settle transactions. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) in the US is specifically looking at credit derivatives settlement.

And notable blockchain startups such as Setl, Digital Asset, Clearmatics, Symbiont and others are also working on protocols to either help or replace traditional clearing houses.

So, there is movement to seek greater efficiencies in settlement, reduce dependence on clearing houses and reinforce transparency. But it’s happening slowly.

Understandably so. Blockchain technology is still new and relatively untested in financial applications. And systemic market infrastructure is not something you play around with.

However, the clock is ticking. And heavy investment in new systems that perpetuate current inefficiencies and are not future-proof will end up adding even more pressure to financial services firms’ already squeezed margins.

I’ve written before how financial shifts due to pending regulation end up spurring research on new uses.

Now we can add political pressure to the list motivating factors.

VC funds have too much money

Yesterday’s Lex column in the FT (paywall) commented on the mountain of cash sitting in VC funds. According to analysts at Goldman Sachs, approximately $121bn is waiting to be invested. This reveals two things:

  • Investors are hungry for VC returns.
  • VCs are having a tough time finding viable investments.

The first point is understandable, given the paltry returns elsewhere.

The second is interesting. It’s not for a lack of startups vying for cash. And not just startups, there are plenty of ongoing businesses that could use an infusion, which they might not be able to get from ever-more-conservative banks.

Could it be that investment firms are understaffed? Or could it be that the opportunities don’t meet the requirements?

The pressure is on, as cash holdings weigh down the overall returns, which further down the line will affect the amount of cash coming in.

This could explain the interest of some VC firms in alternative investments. A few weeks ago Harvard Business Review looked at the surge of interest on the part of VCs in ICOs, or “initial coin offerings” – tokens issued on a blockchain that confer value or utility.

In spite of their tenuous legal situation (are they securities? are they currencies? For now they are largely unregulated), institutional investors are attracted by the potentially high returns and the liquidity. And institutional interest could explain why several recent issuances were sold out within minutes.

The danger is the paucity of supply relative to the funds available. VCs could end up competing for stakes in blockchain projects, which would push valuations to ridiculous levels.

There is no way that crypto investments could make even a small dent in the piles of unused cash. CoinDesk Research revealed that 2016 saw a total of $236m of investment in ICOs. Even if 2017’s offering were to triple, it would still be miniscule in comparison.

This creates a potentially dangerous situation. Even if only 1% of the surplus cash wanted to try out an ICO opportunity, the imbalance in demand and supply would distort market fundamentals.

A bubble in the ecosystem would do damage – when it pops, investment and development are likely to be set back for years.

 

 

 

Snap and its impact on decentralization

Snapchat ipo

Snap’s recent IPO created a stir not only because of the impressive valuation and the post-launch price pop. It also generated controversy due to the voting rights of the listed shares. As in, they don’t exist.

As a result, FTSE Russell (market leader in the creation of global market indices) has decided to exclude Snap from its global indices when they are revised in June, pending revision. This is a blow to the company, since inclusion in an index implies a significant boost in liquidity, especially given the recent surge in demand for index-based funds.

Bloomberg’s Matt Levine points out that the increasing role of index funds in the market confers an increasing amount of power to the index creators. That FTSE Russell can make such a key decision about the market prospects of a company is disconcerting, especially since the criteria are not clear.

Here we start to scratch the surface of a fundamental shift in market models.

Although FTSE Russell has said that it will collect opinions from investors before making a firm decision, the fact that this is even up for review implies a judgement call.

The concerns are apparently centered on the governance model. Fund managers and even the SEC have also expressed concerns, citing uneven representation and its potential impact on disclosure requirements.

But the deeper issue at play is this: centralized vs decentralized control.

Giving all shareholders a say in how the company is run – who’s on the board, capital increases, corporate policy, etc. – is a more “democratic” approach to governance. Spreading responsibility for major decisions across the ownership structure is a gesture of faith that the owners will have the company’s best interests at heart, and that a collective decision carries more weight than one taken in isolation.

However, giving up control is understandably difficult for most founders (even with a fortune on the table in exchange). Hence the creation of a separate class of shares for outside investors (ie. not the founders and not the initial backers) with no voting rights. In fact, the founders have created a separate share class for themselves, with 10x the voting rights of the “normal” shares owned by the original backers (1 share, 1 vote). So, Snap’s founders effectively can do whatever they want with the company.

While that may sound fair on the surface, when you admit external investors, you relinquish control. At least, that’s how economics has worked up until now.

It’s not obvious why public companies bundle ownership and voting rights, other than the belief that it makes the shares more attractive. Snap has gone the other way, alleging that the market wants the founders to retain control.

In theory, their argument should be easy to prove: if investors don’t want that, they won’t buy the stock. Since the share price has remained well above its launch at $17, we can deduce that investors are not too unhappy.

What’s more, the market’s widely accepted definition of “ownership” implies responsibility, but there apparently is no legal basis for that interpretation.

The market has also always assumed that owning a “share” means owning part of the company. That definition seems to be changing, with the advent of new types of representation such as token-based dividend rights and blockchain-based funding models.

Snap’s decision highlights not only a shift in sentiment, but also a widening gap between the two schools of thought: those that think ownership should be decentralized, and those that don’t.

The debate looks set to intensify over the coming months, and not just because of the tie-in with political trends of anti-globalization and concentration of power. Underlying disquiet over the decentralizing influence of blockchain technology is likely to encourage attempts to regulate or channel applications. A heated discussion of the meaning of ownership is likely to surface, and the emergence of alternative investment vehicles could call into question established power structures.

If you’re thinking that this sounds like a full-blown attack on the capitalist model, you could be right.

Only this time, the resulting schism is unlikely to be as ephemeral as Snapchat’s messages.

Could a bitcoin ETF happen in the near future?

Now that the market excitement over the possibility of a bitcoin ETF seems to have been put to bed with the SEC rejecting both the Winklevoss and the SolidX proposals, it’s worth thinking about what needs to change for an official bitcoin investment vehicle to happen.

Forbes published today an interesting article by Moe Adham that unpacks the SEC decision. He pins the causes on two things:

    1) The lack of “surveillance-sharing agreements with significant markets”, in this case between the listing exchange (BATS) and a commodity exchange operator (Gemini, which does not have a significant market position). The concern is that the market insignificance of the exchange on which the underlying asset will be traded could leave it vulnerable to manipulation.
    2) The Gemini Exchange is not regulated enough (it is, though, one of only two regulated bitcoin exchanges in New York – but apparently that’s not enough).

Moe then goes on to hypothesize on what would need to happen before a US-listed bitcoin ETF is approved:

    1) The majority of bitcoin trading needs to happen on US-based exchanges.
    2) US-based bitcoin exchanges need to be regulated.

I agree with Moe that both of the above are unlikely to happen in the near future, but I don’t believe that those are the necessary conditions.

In its ruling, the SEC specified that the main reason for the rejection was:

“because the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulated.”

While this may be true today, it’s unlikely to remain the case for long. As we have seen, several other major markets have made moves to regulate their cryptocurrency exchanges, and we will most likely see this trend pick up steam.

Even if the SEC were to insist on most exchanges being US-based (which I think even they would agree is an unreasonable condition), it’s not totally out of the question. Almost 40% bitcoin trading now happens in US$, making it the largest market, according to Cryptocompare.

via Cryptocompare - Bitcoin ETF
via Cryptocompare

Although only two of the top five US$-BTC exchanges are based in the US (Poloniex and Coinbase), one of them (Coinbase) already has a New York BitLicense. Poloniex, on the other hand, pulled out of New York rather than have to apply for a BitLicense. But that might change, either because Poloniex shifts priorities or because the requirements become less costly and cumbersome.

In the bitcoin sector, regulation is a trend that can only move forward.

With increasing exchange oversight and greater liquidity in the major trading markets, bitcoin prices will become more reliable and transparent, solving another of the SEC’s concerns.

So, I’m more optimistic than Moe that we will see a listed bitcoin ETF in the near future.

I don’t, however, think it will happen in the US first. Another country is far ahead in terms of regulation and acceptance by the financial system, and its regulators are more likely to approve a liquid, listed bitcoin investment vehicle in the short term.

Where?

Japan.

 

Stock exchange technology problems

New-York-Stock-Exchange-Facade1 800

The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that the NYSE’s Arca exchange, which hosts the trading of more than half of the exchange-traded funds (ETFs) listed in the US, suffered a “glitch” at the end of trading yesterday. All live orders were cancelled, and a “backup method” was used to determine settlement prices.

Why is this interesting? In part because of the lack of information. The NYSE is not disclosing details about why the system failed. Either this is because they don’t know (disconcerting in this day of electronic information) or because they’re trying to figure out how to spin it (which could mean that it’s more complicated than just a simple “glitch”).

It’s also interesting given recent progress made in blockchain applications for trading and settlement of securities.

The NYSE is not as deeply invested in blockchain exploration as other exchanges (notably the Australian Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and Deutsche Börse). It is an investor in cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, although the exchange’s interest in bitcoin seems to be limited to the index it launched in 2015. Nor is it one of the more technologically advanced exchanges. Bats, for example, has a better reputation on that front.

Maybe what happened yesterday will underline the need for a more robust, transparent solution. Maybe this will affect the scope of the resources thrown at the problem. Maybe the end result will be a blockchain platform, or maybe not – either way, we will likely end up with answers to questions we haven’t even asked yet.

 

Bitcoin funds – alternatives to ETFs

by Steve Buissinne via StockSnap - bitcoin funds
by Steve Buissinne via StockSnap

Now that the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF is off the table, it’s worth looking at the alternatives, present and future. What can you invest in if you want exposure to bitcoin without holding bitcoin?

In chronological order of listing, we start with a couple of Scandinavian funds.

The first publicly traded vehicle was an Exchange Traded Note (ETN), not an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). An ETN is a debt note designed to provide investors with a return linked to a certain benchmark. On maturity, the investor will get the initial cash back, plus or minus the change in value of the underlying asset. An ETN can be liquidated before maturity by trading it on an exchange, or by handing in the relevant amount of the underlying asset to the issuing bank.

ETNs and ETFs are similar in that both track an underlying asset, both have lower expenses than actively managed mutual funds, and both trade on major exchanges. The main difference between them is that with an ETF, you’re investing in a fund that holds the underlying asset. With an ETN, you’re not – the return is tracked and calculated. Since an ETF is not backed by an asset, its credit worthiness is tied to the reliability of the underwriting institution.

In May 2015, Stockholm-based XBT Provider launched the first bitcoin-based ETN, on the Stockholm Stock Exchange (part of Nasdaq Nordic). It was called Bitcoin Tracker One and was denominated in kronor. Bitcoin Tracker EUR, denominated in euros, followed a few months later.

Trading of the two was briefly suspended a year later when XBT Provider’s parent company – KnC Group (which also owned bitcoin miner KnC Miner) – declared bankruptcy ahead of the bitcoin halving. XBT Provider was swiftly bought by Global Advisors (Jersey) Limited, a Jersey-based investment manager (of which more down below).

Both notes are now available in 179 countries (if investors have an account on Nasdaq Nordic), and both prospectuses have been approved by the Swedish financial supervisory authority.

In December 2016, Global Advisors (Jersey) Limited listed the Global Advisors Bitcoin Investment Fund on the Jersey Stock Exchange. While the vehicle had been created in 2014 and had received regulatory approval from the Jersey Financial Services Commission, this listing made it the first regulated bitcoin fund to trade on a recognized, regulated exchange. Rather than just hold bitcoin, it actively manages holdings in order to outperform the underlying asset.

The custodians for the fund are Gemini and itBit, both regulated bitcoin exchanges. Although the fund is pitched as a pure bitcoin play, its charter allows it to hold up to 25% of its wealth in non-bitcon assets.

The Bitcoin Investment Trust (BIT) was the first US-based private investment vehicle to invest exclusively in bitcoin. While technically it is a fund that can be traded and is available to certain segments of the public, holders can only sell one year after purchase.

BIT began raising capital on SecondMarket, an alternative exchange for private stock owned by Digital Currency Group CEO Barry Silbert, in September 2014. SecondMarket made a $2m seed investment in the fund. BIT is aimed exclusively at institutional and accredited individual investors, with a minimum investment of $25,000.

In 2015 it launched a new sponsor, Grayscale Investments. It also moved its trading to the OTCQX, the leading over-the-counter exchange in the US, where it resides today. The fund usually trades at a significant premium to the underlying asset, largely due to the low liquidity.

Other bitcoin ETFs are awaiting their turn in the spotlight. Next up is SolidX, which submitted its proposal in 2016. A ruling is due by the end of this month. And earlier this year, Grayscale Investments filed a proposal with the SEC to list BIT as an ETF in a $500 million initial public offering.

Furthermore, the Winklevoss brothers have said that they will continue to work with the SEC to address its concerns. While the barriers are high, it sounds like they haven’t given up.