Crypto Mom Says SEC Won’t Need a Lawsuit to Approve Spot Ethereum ETFs

Hester Pierce, popularly known as “Crypto Mom,” who serves as a commissioner with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), believes the agency would not need a lawsuit or a court ruling to approve pending spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) application.

During an interview with community-owned crypto media outlet Coinage, Commissioner Pierce insisted the SEC should not need a court to direct its approach as it would treat spot Ethereum ETFs the way it does other exchange-traded products.

An Arbitrary and Capricious Approach

Crypto Mom’s statements are hinged on the circumstances that led to the SEC’s approval of the first wave of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the U.S. Under the leadership of former and current chairs – Jay Clinton and Gary Gensler – the Commission rejected numerous applications for spot Bitcoin products between 2013 and 2023.

The story changed last year after a federal appeals court ordered the SEC to reevaluate Grayscale’s application. The asset management firm had dragged the Commission to court in 2022 after the agency rejected its proposal to convert its Bitcoin Investment Trust (GBTC) into a spot ETF.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the SEC failed to explain why it approved the listing of two Bitcoin futures products but not Grayscale’s GBTC, ruling that, indeed, the regulator’s approach was arbitrary and capricious, like the asset manager had accused.

No Need For a Lawsuit on Ether ETFs

It is believed that the spot Bitcoin ETFs launched less than two weeks ago were only approved because of the Grayscale ruling; otherwise, Gensler would have continued to turn down the applications on the basis that BTC markets were prone to manipulation.

In response to the interviewer’s questions on the same fate befalling around seven spot Ethereum ETF applications on the SEC’s desk, Commissioner Pierce said:

“That’s not how we’re going to do our approvals. As I’ve said through this process, what we need to be doing is we need to just be applying regular way consideration to these products. The same kind of consideration that we apply to similar products. So, we shouldn’t need a court to tell us that our approach is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ in order for us to get it right.”