The SEC rejected Cboe’s 19b-4 filings for Solana ETFs: Source

Reported by The Block: The U.S. SEC turned down the 19b-4 applications by the Cboe BZX on behalf of two prospective Solana ETF issuers, according to a well-placed source.

This came after the agency reiterated its view to issuers that Solana is a security, The Block previously reported.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rejected Cboe BZX’s 19b-4 filings for two prospective spot Solana ETFs, according to a source familiar with the situation. As a result, they were withdrawn from the Cboe website.

This followed conversations between the SEC and issuers over its concerns that Solana should be regarded as a security, as The Block previously reported, citing a different source. This view matches what the SEC has asserted in court filings in multiple cases.

The 19b-4 filings are filed by exchanges — in this case, the Cboe — on behalf of issuers. If placed in the Federal Register, they start the clock on the SEC’s approval process. The other important form, the S-1 registration statement, is filed by issuers and doesn’t result in any deadlines.

However, since the SEC rejected the 19b-4 forms, they never made it to the Federal Register and haven’t started the process toward a potential approval or denial.

Solana ETFs facing SEC resistance
Two issuers are currently vying for a Solana ETF: 21Shares and VanEck. It appears that 21Shares has stood back on its S-1 form as it no longer appears in search results on the SEC’s filing system EDGAR. VanEck’s S-1 form remains there, and its head of research, Matthew Sigel, says it remains in play.

Even though the 19b-4 rejections were a setback, they could be refiled or amended to include stronger language arguing that Solana is not a security in the near future.

"We are unable to comment on the regulatory process at this time. We remain committed to expanding investor access to cryptocurrencies in the U.S. market and around the world," said Audrey Belloff, head of communications at 21Shares.

VanEck, Cboe and the SEC did not respond immediately to a request for comment.