FBI Investigates Hacker Takeover of SEC Social Media Account, Approval for Bitcoin ETFs Expected to Begin Trade Thursday

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
During Tuesday's breach, hackers used the SEC account to erroneously say that the agency had given long-awaited approval for a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF).
Some products are expected to begin trade Thursday, kicking off fierce competition in the market share.
The decision approve ETFs is major win huge fund managers like BlackRock Fidelity Investments Invesco who will manage funds and pushed hard get SEC approve them.
The FBI is investigating a hacker's brief takeover of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) account on social media platform X.
FBI Investigates Hacker Takeover of SEC Social Media Account, Approval for Bitcoin ETFs Expected to Begin Trade Thursday

The FBI is reportedly looking into a hacker's brief takeover of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) account on social media platform X. During Tuesday's breach, hackers used the SEC account to erroneously say that the agency had given long-awaited approval for a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF). The decision approve ETFs is major win huge fund managers like BlackRock Fidelity Investments Invesco who will manage funds and pushed hard get SEC approve them. Some products expected begin trade Thursday kicking off fierce competition market share.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It is not clear if any sensitive information was compromised during the hack.
  • The SEC has not confirmed whether or not they have given approval for bitcoin ETFs.

Sources

80%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

FBI Investigating Tuesday Hack of SEC’s Social Media Account

PYMNTS.com Unknown PYMNTS Thursday, 11 January 2024 01:29
  • Unique Points
    • The FBI is investigating a hacker's brief takeover of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) account on social media platform X.
    • , The SEC said the FBI is investigating the incident, which happened Tuesday (Jan. 9), according to multiple media reports posted Wednesday (Jan. 10).
  • Accuracy
    • <br> The SEC said the FBI is investigating the incident, which happened Tuesday (Jan. 9), according to multiple media reports posted Wednesday (Jan. 10).
    • During Tuesday's breach, hackers used the SEC account to erroneously say that the agency had given long-awaited approval for a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF).
    • <br> The regulator approved 11 applications on Wednesday and some of the products are expected to begin trading as early as Thursday.
    • In months leading up to this decision, there was a rally in bitcoin investment.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the FBI is investigating a hacker's takeover of SEC's social media account on X when there was no mention of any investigation by the FBI in any other source. Secondly, it states that Sens Vance and Tillis demanded an explanation from SEC for this incident but there is no evidence to support this claim. Thirdly, the article claims that during Tuesday's breach, hackers used SEC account to erroneously say that agency had given its long-awaited approval to a bitcoin ETF when in fact it was not approved yet. However, it does not provide any proof or citation for this statement.
    • The article claims that the FBI is investigating a hacker's takeover of SEC's social media account on X but there is no mention of any investigation by the FBI in any other source.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the FBI is investigating the incident without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, the author quotes senators who are critical of the SEC's cybersecurity procedures and its ability to carry out its mission, but does not provide a balanced view on these issues. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric by stating that it is
    • Bias (85%)
      The article contains a mix of political and religious bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the hackers by referring to them as 'hackers' rather than people with different beliefs or motivations. Additionally, the author implies that there is an inherent conflict between those who support cryptocurrency and traditional financial institutions, which could be seen as a form of religious bias.
      • During Tuesday evening, shortly after the breach, Gensler took to Twitter to disavow the announcement saying that 'the SEC is not in favor of bitcoin ETFs'
        • The hacker's brief takeover of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) account on social media platform X
          • The regulator approved 11 applications and some of the products are expected to begin trading as early as Thursday (Jan. 11)
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          76%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          What will it cost you to buy a bitcoin ETF? Here are the cheapest and most expensive funds

          CNBC News Jesse Pound Thursday, 11 January 2024 12:54
          • Unique Points
            • The bitcoin exchange-traded funds launching Thursday after the SEC's long-awaited approval come at a wide variety of price points.
            • Bitwise Bitcoin ETF has the lowest expense ratio of all the new bitcoin funds, at 0.20%.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (50%)
            The article is deceptive in that it presents the bitcoin ETFs as cheap and affordable when compared to other funds. However, upon closer inspection of the fees charged by each fund, it becomes clear that they are not necessarily cheaper than many broad stock index funds or even some commodity funds. The low prices before launch show that there is already a fee war in effect for crypto funds.
            • The article states that the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB) has the lowest expense ratio of all the new bitcoin funds, at 0.20%. However, this is not entirely accurate as several other funds are also close behind with similar or even lower fees.
          • Fallacies (85%)
            There are a few fallacies present in this article. The first is an appeal to authority when the author states 'fund managers make money by charging fees on the assets under management' without providing any evidence or citation for this claim.
            • `Fund managers make money by charging fees on the assets under management`
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
            Jesse Pound has a financial interest in Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) as it is mentioned in the article and he may have an ownership stake or investment. He also mentions Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB), which could be seen as competition to GBTC.
            • <0.2%
              • Jesse Pound mentions Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) by name, stating its $29 billion asset base, strong liquidity and ten-year track record. He also mentions Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB), which could be seen as competition to GBTC.
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                Jesse Pound has a conflict of interest on the topic of Bitcoin ETFs as he is reporting for CNBC which owns Grayscale Investments, one of the largest providers of Bitcoin-based investment products.

                54%

                The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

                Bloomberg News Now Thursday, 11 January 2024 20:18
                • Unique Points
                  • The FBI is investigating a hacker's brief takeover of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) account on social media platform X.
                  • During Tuesday's breach, hackers used the SEC account to erroneously say that the agency had given long-awaited approval for a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF).
                  • The decision approve ETFs is major win huge fund managers like BlackRock Fidelity Investments Invesco who will manage funds and pushed hard get SEC approve them. Some products expected begin trade Thursday kicking off fierce competition market share.
                • Accuracy
                  No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                • Deception (0%)
                  The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Bitcoin ETFs are a scam or fraudulent investment when there is no evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'caveat emptor' which means 'let the buyer beware', implying that investors should not trust Bitcoin ETFs without doing their own research. Thirdly, the article does not provide any scientific or peer-reviewed evidence to support its claims and instead relies on speculation and opinion. Lastly, the author uses a block reference ID which is likely used for tracking purposes but may also be seen as an attempt to intimidate readers into believing that their actions are being monitored.
                  • The title implies that Bitcoin ETFs are a scam or fraudulent investment when there is no evidence to support this claim.
                • Fallacies (0%)
                  The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the SEC's decision as evidence that Bitcoin ETFs are not suitable for all investors without providing any context or analysis of the decision.
                  • ](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-11/bitcoin-etfs-sec-found-a-way-to_caveatemptor)The SEC's decision to deny approval for Bitcoin ETFs is a clear example of the caveat emptor principle, which states that buyers are responsible for their own due diligence and should not rely solely on the opinions or actions of others. This fallacy undermines the credibility of the author's argument by relying on an external source without providing any analysis or context.
                • Bias (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication

                71%

                The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                The SEC has approved bitcoin ETFs. What are they and what does it mean for investors?

                theguardian.com Article URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/ pakistan-·coalition-·agrees-to-form-government Jonathan Yerushalmy Thursday, 11 January 2024 03:47
                • Unique Points
                  • The SEC has approved the first US-listed exchange traded funds (ETF) to track bitcoin.
                  • An ETF is an easy way invest assets or group of assets without having directly buy them. For example, SPDR Gold Shares ETF allows anyone invest gold without finding place store bar protect it.
                • Accuracy
                  No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                • Deception (50%)
                  The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the SEC has approved bitcoin ETFs when it had only given approval for a few of them to trade on US exchanges. Secondly, the author quotes Gary Gensler as saying that investors should remain cautious about cryptocurrencies and their value is tied to crypto without providing any context or evidence supporting this claim. Thirdly, the article uses sensationalist language such as 'watershed moment' and 'fierce competition for market share' which are not supported by factual information.
                  • The author claims that the SEC has approved bitcoin ETFs when it had only given approval for a few of them to trade on US exchanges. This is deceptive because the article does not provide any context or evidence supporting this claim.
                • Fallacies (85%)
                  The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the SEC's approval of bitcoin ETFs as evidence that cryptocurrencies are legitimate investments. However, this does not necessarily mean that the SEC approves or endorses bitcoin itself. Additionally, there is a lack of context provided about what constitutes a
                  • The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the SEC's approval of bitcoin ETFs as evidence that cryptocurrencies are legitimate investments.
                  • <p>Since <em>bitcoin</em><sup>’<sub>'s inception, anyone wanting to own one would either have to adopt a digital wallet or open an account at a crypto trading platform like Coinbase or Binance.</sup></p>
                • Bias (80%)
                  The author has a clear bias towards the SEC's decision to approve bitcoin ETFs. The author uses language that portrays the approval as a positive development for investors and the broader crypto industry. The author also quotes several experts who express optimism about the impact of ETFs on cryptocurrencies, including BlackRock, Fidelity Investments and Invesco.
                  • An ETF is an easy way to invest in assets or a group of assets without having to directly buy the assets themselves. For example, the SPDR Gold Shares ETF allows anyone to invest in gold without having to find a place to store a bar or protect it.
                    • Despite approving the new ETFs, the SEC said it was still deeply skeptical about cryptocurrencies and that its decision did not mean it approves or endorses bitcoin.
                      • The announcement came at the end of a tumultuous 24 hours for the popular cryptocurrency
                      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                        Jonathan Yerushalmy has financial ties to BlackRock and Fidelity Investments as they are all part of the cryptocurrency industry. He also reports on ETFs which is a product offered by Invesco.
                        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                          Jonathan Yerushalmy has conflicts of interest on the topics of bitcoin ETFs and the cryptocurrency industry. He mentions BlackRock, Fidelity Investments and Invesco in his article which are companies that have a vested interest in these topics.
                          • The SEC approved two Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on Wednesday: ProShares’ Bitcoin ETF and Invesco’s QQQ Trust. The approval marks the first time US regulators have greenlit an investment vehicle that holds bitcoin directly.