How the CME (un)intentionally weighed in on chain splits

For background, this post assumes you have read some (or ideally all) of the previous posts:

Last year, when the CME first announced that it was considering backing a Bitcoin-related futures product, it also announced the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate (BRR).  At the time, the reference pricing data came from the following cryptocurrency exchanges: Bitfinex, Bitstamp, GDAX, itBit, Kraken and (HK).

As of today, the CME has formally whittled down those six into a smaller group of four exchanges: Bitstamp, GDAX, itBit and Kraken.

They did not publicly disclose why they removed Bitfinex and OKCoin, although we can speculate:

  • It is likely they removed OKCoin because of the laws and regulations around cryptocurrencies in China over the past year included various types of bans.  OKCoin’s mainland spot price exchange for yuan <-> cryptocurrency have been shut down.  OKEX, an international subsidiary of OKCoin, replaced the China-based exchanges on its own index (including OKCoin itself).
  • Bitfinex’s corporate and organizational structure has been described in previous articles.  Even though it has the largest trading volume and is the key player to price discovery, it has a lot of red flags around compliance and transparency (described in the links at the top) that likely made organizations such as the CME uneasy.

It bears mentioning that the proposed Winklevoss COIN ETF also went through a similar evolution in terms of how to price the instrument.  The principals initially created and used the Winkdex.  The Winkdex included many different cryptocurrency exchanges over time, including Mt. Gox and BTC-e.  Eventually, in future amended filings to the COIN ETF, the Winkdex was completely discarded in favor of a daily auction price conducted at an exchange (Gemini) that the principals and creators of the COIN ETF owned and managed.  This is chronicled in a paper I wrote last year.

So what does this have to do with the CME and how did the CME (un)intentionally weigh in on the Bitcoin block size debate?

During the recent Bitcoin Core versus SegWit2X (S2X) political battle, one of the four exchanges that constitute the CME reference rate announced which ticker symbol would be attributed to a specific chain.

GDAX (Coinbase), made the following public announcement on October 25:

In our prior blog post we indicated that at the time of the fork, the existing chain will be called Bitcoin (BTC) and the Segwit2x fork will be called Bitcoin2x (B2X).

Since then, some customers have asked us to clarify what will happen after the fork. We are going to call the chain with the most accumulated difficulty Bitcoin.

We will make a determination on this change once we believe the forks are in a stable state. We may also consider other factors such as market cap and community support to determine stability.

It’s important for us to maintain a neutral position in any fork. We believe that letting the market decide is the best way to ensure that Bitcoin remains a fair and open network.

Note: original emphasis is theirs.

There have been several articles that attempted to track and chronicle what all of the exchanges announced with respect to the ticker symbol and the fork.  At the time of this writing, itBit, Kraken, and Bitstamp have not publicly commented on this specific fork (although they have publicly signaled specific views on other proposed forks in the past).

And this creates a challenge for any financial institution attempting to create a financial instrument that is compromised of a basket of cryptocurrency-specific prices from different, independent cryptocurrency exchanges.

Ignoring the lack of adequate market surveillance for the moment, if there is a future fork and the constituent exchanges that comprise the reference data choose different forks to be represented by the same ticker symbol, this will likely create problems for the financial product.

For instance, in a hypothetical scenario in which a fork occurs, and two of the exchanges comprising the BRR index choose one side of the fork to list as “BTC” and the other two exchanges choose the other fork to also represent “BTC,” because these forks are linked to separate different ecosystems and even economic systems the combination could impact the volatility of the product.

Or in short: there is no universal agreement or consensus from cryptocurrency exchanges comprising the BRR about what the ticker symbol, let alone the chain should be defined as.

Concluding remarks

Over the past several years the primary debate has been around scaling, specifically around block sizes.  What if future forks are fought over changes to transaction fees, money supply, or KYC requirements?  This isn’t idle speculation as these have been proposed in the past with both Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies (Ethereum Classic  held an event last year to focus on what the future money supply generation rate should be).

Obviously this is a situation the CME (and similar financial institutions) wants to avoid at all costs.

In order to do this, it’ll have to pick a side and either:

a) force an errant exchange on its index to fall in line or lose the free marketing; or

b) ditch it from the index

Either way, as by far the largest player in the market, in doing so it will be governing what Bitcoin is.  Unlike what most Bitcoin promoters often think: traders follow liquidity not the other way around so the CME is likely to become kingmaker in Bitcoin political disputes.  It is going to become a key arm in its governance.  That said, as we have seen before, rather than directly get involved with the tribes and religions of development they might simply defer to the incumbent Bitcoin Core rules — so that they can remain above the politics and out of any legal liabilities.

For more detailed commentary on this topic, be sure to read the articles linked to at the top.  This will be worth re-visiting once the CME and other regulated institutions fully launch their proposed products.

Acknowledgements: special thanks to Ciaran Murray for several insights articulated above.

Send to Kindle

2 thoughts on “How the CME (un)intentionally weighed in on chain splits

  1. I don’t think it’s really an issue… It shouldn’t matter who perceives which coin to be the new “real” one. In a long dated futures or options contract the general consensus on a forked coins validity could change or be in flux by the time of expiration.

    Options are adjusted all the time for splits, spinoffs, and mergers. If a fork happens mid contract, the contract should simply be adjusted to deliver both coins.

  2. Pingback: Weekly Links #3 | Post Oak Labs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *