Potential Solana ETF issuers are optimistic about their prospects

The US Securities and Exchange Commission is concerned about Solana’s status as a security. This was discussed during recent negotiations between the regulator’s representatives and potential issuers of cryptocurrency ETFs, the media reports, citing a source.

After this, the Chicago Board Options Exchange decided not to register Form 19b-4. According to the sources, this would facilitate the approval of the products and would become a lever of pressure on the SEC regarding the timing of the decision.

In order to launch ETF trading, the regulator must register Form S-1. At the same time, the US Securities and Exchange Commission does not have a clear deadline for reviewing this document.

The corresponding application from VanEck is still in the filing system addressed to the regulator, while the proposals from 21Shares are not.

According to an anonymous source, the agency’s actions did not come as a surprise to ETF issuers, since Solana is listed as a possible security in various SEC lawsuits.

In the near future, crypto market participants expect potential issuers to update the forms of documents, which will present more compelling arguments in favor of SOL. Indirect confirmation of this was provided by VanEck top manager Matthew Siegel, who reported the removal of the application from the Chicago Board Options Exchange website.

“Remember that Exchanges like Nasdaq & CBOE file rule changes (19b-4) to list new ETFs. Issuers like VanEck are responsible for the prospectus (S-1). Ours remains in play,” Siegel wrote.

Interestingly, the SEC filed an amendment to its lawsuit against Binance in late July this year. Analysts speculated that this could impact the final decision on whether Solana is a security.

“The amendments will eliminate the need to make a judgment on the sufficiency of the allegations regarding these tokens at this time,” the motion stated.

However, it appears that the US regulator’s rhetoric has changed again.

What do you think is behind the regulator’s changing decisions?