People are reading way too much into this clause. It means nothing. It’s a protective clause in the event a fork happens and they need to continue operating the ETF without being subjected to any sort of liability. They aren’t going to make their own fork, that would open a whole new set of potential liability for them that they don’t want to deal with. The clause is a nothingburger.
Discussion
This take is solid af
Thank you, I think it’s just realistic 🤷♂️. Here is how i imagine their thought process:
My guess is they’ve done their homework, learned of the block size wars, and thought “if this happens again, where someone claims a random fork is the ‘real’ bitcoin, these people may try to sue us saying we are making false representations with our BTC ETF because it isn’t the real bitcoin, according to them. So we should shield ourselves from that and say, if something like this happens again, we are going to have final say over which one is real for purposes of the ETF, so that they cannot claim we are misrepresenting anything.”
And my guess is they would continue supporting the strongest and most valuable one (the only real one) - BTC.
Side note: if Blackrock made their own fork it’d probably be a security.
All great points my friend. Covering their own downside is definitely the most realistic interpretation