In a fervent response to a recent article from The Economist, Anthony Scaramucci has criticized the negative portrayal of the nascent Bitcoin ETF market.

The article in question, which questioned the success of Bitcoin ETFs following their long-awaited approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), sparked controversy among cryptocurrency advocates.

Scaramucci, known for his bullish stance on cryptocurrencies, challenged the pessimistic view by questioning what constitutes success if a $5 billion ETF debut is seen as disappointing.

"If a $5bn ETF start is bad what is good? If it were anything other than Bitcoin," he pondered.

The Economist's pessimistic outlook

The Economist's article traces the journey to the SEC's approval of 11 Bitcoin ETF applications, a milestone reached after years of anticipation and a surge in Bitcoin's price.

However, the report underscores a less-than-optimistic start for these ETFs, noting a 7% decline in Bitcoin's price since the approval and an almost equal exchange of inflows and outflows between the newly launched ETFs and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust.

It compares the potential of Bitcoin ETFs to the historical performance of gold ETFs, pointing to significant differences in market dynamics and investor behavior.

The analysis argues Bitcoin ETFs might not have the same transformative effect as gold ETFs.

Treading carefully

In the meantime, Rob Pettman, LPL Financial's EVP of wealth management solutions, is not jumping on the bandwagon just yet, Bloomberg reports.

Instead, he is hitting the pause button, calling for a three-month deep dive into these new spot Bitcoin ETFs before even considering adding them to LPL's lineup.

This move, cautious yet calculated, mirrors the wider sentiment across the finance world, where excitement over ETFs is tempered by a nagging worry about their staying power.