Big banks want to be part of bitcoin ETF, which is a way to invest in digital money. They ask the people who make the rules (SEC) to change some things so they can do that. The rule change would help them work with digital money without too much trouble. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and clickbait. It suggests that big banks are lobbying for a Bitcoin ETF role, but it does not specify which big banks or what exactly they are lobbying for. A more accurate title would be "Coalition of Big Banks Urge SEC to Amend SAB 121 for Crypto Assets".
- The article is poorly structured and lacks clarity. It jumps from one topic to another without explaining the context or relevance. For example, it mentions Spot Bitcoin ETPs approval, but does not explain what they are or how they relate to SAB 121 or the coalition's petition.
- The article uses vague and ambiguous terms such as "crypto-asset" and "DLT". It does not define them or provide examples of what they include or exclude. This makes it hard for readers to understand the scope and implications of the proposed modifications.
- The article relies on a single source, the letter from the coalition to SEC Chair Gensler, without verifying its authenticity or credibility. It does not provide any independent analysis or commentary from experts or stakeholders. This makes it seem like a PR piece for the coalition rather than an unbiased news report.
- The article does not address any potential risks or challenges associated with the proposed amendments to SAB 121. It does not mention how they would affect investors, regulators, or the broader market. It also does not consider alternative solutions or compromises that could be explored.
- The article ends abruptly and without conclusion. It does not summarize the main points or provide any outlook or recommendation for readers. It leaves them hanging and wondering what happened next.