Yorkville Pulls Three Truth Social Crypto ETF Registrations From SEC, Citing Regulatory Pivot

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Yorkville America Equities withdrew registration statements for three Truth Social-branded cryptocurrency exchange-traded funds from the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, citing what it described as a strategic shift from the Securities Act of 1933 framework to the Investment Company Act of 1940. 

No shares were sold under any of the registrations, and Yorkville requested that paid filing fees be credited toward future submissions under Rule 457(p). The firm did not provide a timeline for relaunching crypto-focused products under the new framework.

Withdrawn Filings Covered Bitcoin, Bitcoin and Ethereum, and Crypto Blue Chip Products

The three pulled registrations covered the Truth Social Bitcoin ETF, the Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF, and the Truth Social Crypto Blue Chip ETF, all of which were originally filed between June and July 2025. All three withdrawals were submitted under Rule 477(a). The SEC had not declared any of the registration statements effective prior to their withdrawal. The filing stated:

“The Company has determined to withdraw the Registration Statement and not to pursue the public offering at this time. The Registration Statement has not been declared effective by the Commission, and the Company confirms that no securities have been sold pursuant to the Registration Statement.”

Yorkville Framed the Withdrawal as a Forward Strategic Move, Not a Retreat

Yorkville characterized the pullback as a regulatory strategy adjustment rather than an exit from the crypto ETF market. In its withdrawal filing, Yorkville said the 1940 Act framework offers stronger investor protections, greater operational flexibility, and broader access to institutional distribution channels than the 1933 Act structure used for the original filings.  

“Yorkville America is not stepping back, we are stepping forward with a stronger product platform,” Steve Neamtz, President of Yorkville America, said.

Bloomberg Intelligence Analyst Questioned the Stated Rationale, Pointed to Competition

Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Research Analyst James Seyffart questioned Yorkville’s explanation in a post on X, saying the regulatory rationale did not hold up for him. 

“But it doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. Of course a 33 act ETP is different from a 40 act ETF and it has less protections. Anyone in this space knows that. Nothing has changed,” he said. 

Seyffart pointed instead to competitive dynamics as a more likely driver, specifically flagging Morgan Stanley’s spot bitcoin ETF, MSBT, which entered the market at a 14-basis-point fee. Seyffart acknowledged that a pivot toward more differentiated products under the 1940 Act wrapper could make strategic sense, even if the regulatory rationale was unconvincing. 

“I mean do we really need a 14th spot bitcoin ETF? But something that can be more differentiated makes sense,” he said. Yorkville did not disclose a timeline for relaunching any of the three products under the new framework.