A man named Balchunas thinks there is a 35% chance that a special kind of money called Ethereum can be approved by some important people. This is lower than before and he doesn't see many good signs that it will happen soon. Other people also think it's not very likely, but they still hope it might happen in the future. Read from source...

- The article is based on a flawed assumption that an Ethereum ETF approval is inevitable or desirable, and ignores the possibility of it being delayed or rejected by the SEC.
- The article relies heavily on Balchunas' adjusted odds, which are subjective and unreliable, as they do not reflect any objective criteria or evidence.
- The article presents a false dichotomy between Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, implying that they follow the same pattern of approval, when in fact they have different characteristics, risks, and regulatory challenges.
- The article cites Seyffart's pessimism as a valid argument, without acknowledging that he is an analyst, not a decision-maker, and his opinion may be influenced by the market sentiment or his own interests.
- The article quotes Chervinsky's legal expertise, but dismisses his arguments as reasons for skepticism, rather than addressing them directly or providing counterarguments.
- The article uses emotional language, such as "disappointment", "optimism", and "overestimating", to influence the reader's feelings, instead of presenting a balanced and factual analysis.

Bearish
Summary: The article discusses the decreasing odds of Ethereum ETF approval by May deadline and the reasons behind it. It highlights the absence of positive indicators that were present ahead of Bitcoin ETF approval and the skepticism of experts like Jake Chervinsky, who outlines several factors weighing against the approval, such as SEC's general disposition towards cryptocurrency, political pressures, and specific concerns about spot/futures correlation.