Interest in Bitcoin and crypto using Google Trends

 Bitcoin and cypto is really soaring. Interestingly, not many bloggers are writing much about them like the past. The rise in price is not without reasons, being the US SEC has approved spot bitcoins etfs, bitcoin halvening in april and the impending decision to approve options on spot bitcoin etfs. The "fundamentals" for bitcoin is indeed stronger now than in the past. 

Retail interest in Bitcoin

Looking at google trends, the spike in people searching for bitcoin and crypto in the past happens roughly 3-5 months before market price tops. During the period when Blackrock was applying for the spot bitcoin approval, interest was very low. It only started increasing once the etf was appoved. 

But with Bitcoin prices having surpassed its ATH of about USD67000, interest in Bitcoin, using google trends as a reference is surprisingly still very low. 

This leads me to believe that the retail buying has not yet started as the drive in prices is due to instituitional buying of Bitcoins. Barriers to entry for retail to buy Bitcoin is now lowered as there is no need to keep a cold or hard wallet and be afraid of an exchange to fail and lose one's Bitcoin. A normal broker like Interactive Brokers, Moomoo or Tiger will do, without the need to grapple with crypto terms.

A scenario:

Bitcoin price rise leads to increased mining and greater energy use, driving up the cost of energy, causing inflation to rise and the dollar to decline, driving demand for Bitcoin and increased mining, driving demand for energy and the cycle continues.

Bitcoin… https://t.co/a5LzX69R7q

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) March 9, 2024

Spot Ethereum ETF

The US SEC has mentioned that Bitcoin is a commodity while the other cryptos are securities and using the HOWEY test to defend their decision in US courts. Other than Bitcoin,  other cryptos undergo an ICO( initial coin offering) which is akin to an IPO, hence the added burden of regulation.

I am not sure if spot Ethereum will be approved at all but apparently many people believe that if Bitcoin  is approved, the other cryptos will also be approved without realising that the US SEC has already classified them into different classes. 

Possible Next Steps for Hyflux Investors

I am not a lawyer and neither do i have any experience in litigation. After reading the news about the charges filed against the CEO, CFOs and directors for various disclosure-related issues like omissions in the 2011 offer information statement and non compliance with accounting standards, it brought me back to the time when i read the following portions of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA).

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/hyflux-former-ceo-olivia-lum-cfo-directors-charged-court-tuaspring-3079541

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/former-hyflux-ceo-cfo-independent-directors-charged

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/ex-hyflux-ceo-olivia-lum-ex-cfo-and-four-others-charged-for-violations-of-securities-and-futures-act

Civil liability for false or misleading statements

254.—(1)  Where an offer of securities or securities‑based derivatives contracts is made in or accompanied by a prospectus or profile statement, or, in the case of an offer referred to in section 280, where a prospectus or profile statement is prepared and issued in relation to the offer, and — (a) a false or misleading statement is contained in — (i) the prospectus or the profile statement; or (ii) any application form for the securities or securities‑based derivatives contracts; (b) there is an omission to state any information required to be included in the prospectus under section 243 or there is an omission to state any information required to be included in the profile statement under section 246, as the case may be; or (c) there is an omission to state a new circumstance that — (i) has arisen since the prospectus or the profile statement was lodged with the Authority; and (ii) would have been required by section 243 to be included in the prospectus, or required to be included in the profile statement under section 246 (as the case may be) if it had arisen before the prospectus or the profile statement was lodged with the Authority, the persons referred to in subsection (3) are liable to compensate any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of the false or misleading statement in or omission from the prospectus or the profile statement, even if such persons, unless otherwise specified, were not involved in the making of the false or misleading statement or the omission. [4/2017] (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), a false or misleading statement about a future matter (including the doing of, or the refusal to do, an act) is taken to have been made if a person makes the statement without having reasonable grounds for making the statement. (3)  The persons liable are — (a) the person making the offer; (b) where the person making the offer is an entity — (i) each director or equivalent person of the entity; and (ii) if the entity is also the issuer, each person who is, and who has consented to be, named in the prospectus or profile statement as a proposed director or an equivalent person of the entity; (c) where the issuer is controlled by the person making the offer, one or more of the related parties of the person making the offer, or the person making the offer and one or more of that person’s related parties — (i) the issuer; (ii) each director or equivalent person of the issuer; and (iii) each person who is, and who has consented to be, named in the prospectus or the profile statement as a proposed director or an equivalent person of the issuer; (d) an issue manager to the offer of the securities or securities‑based derivatives contracts who is, and who has consented to be, named in the prospectus or the profile statement; (da) an underwriter (but not a sub‑underwriter) to the issue or sale of the securities or securities‑based derivatives contracts who is, and who has consented to be, named in the prospectus or the profile statement; (e) a person named in the prospectus or the profile statement with the person’s consent as having made a statement — (i) that is included in the prospectus or the profile statement; or (ii) on which a statement made in the prospectus or the profile statement is based, but only in respect of the inclusion of that statement; and (f) any other person who made the false or misleading statement or omitted to state the information or circumstance (as the case may be) but only in respect of the inclusion of the statement or the omission to state the information or circumstance.

From a laymans point of view just based on reading superficially the passage above, it does look like some investors do have a recourse in their investments. Certainly best to consult a lawyer to know the details better.

However, a lawyer is very very expensive for the ordinary investor in Singapore due to lack of support from the TOP, like litigation funding, contingency fees or just plain educating and informing the general public on their legal rights and recourse for matters related to investments. 

To be clear, i am not refering to pro bono, small claims tribunal e.t.c which is for the segment of the population who can't afford to invest normally , relating more to criminal law. and for small sums like below $10k.  

I am refering to the lack of support and recourse to civil law matters and the middle class Singaporeans who are neither too poor or too rich to afford legal services without the affordances of litigation funding and  contingency fees.

Anyway, there seems there is a group of very ordinary middle class Singaporeans trying to solve this problem on their own. 

https://governanceforstakeholders.com/2022/11/17/re-posting-a-message-on-behalf-of-a-group-of-hyflux-preference-shareholders-and-perpetual-securities-holders/