GraniteShares has delayed the launch of its 3x Long and 3x Short XRP Daily ETFs from April 23 to May 7, marking the fifth postponement in three weeks and raising fresh questions about whether the SEC will ultimately clear 3x leveraged crypto products under the framework it applied to reject similar products from ProShares in December 2025.
Summary
- GraniteShares delayed its 3x Long and 3x Short XRP Daily ETFs from April 23 to May 7 using Rule 485, which allows issuers to shift effective dates without restarting the SEC review process.
- The delay is the fifth since the original April 2 target date, following the same 3x leverage structure that caused the SEC to push back on ProShares, which withdrew its entire 3x crypto lineup in December 2025.
- If the May 7 date is missed, the funds may not launch in 2026, according to 247 Wall St., as the regulatory window for 3x leveraged crypto ETFs remains unresolved.
GraniteShares has pushed the launch of its 3x Long and 3x Short XRP Daily ETFs from April 23 to May 7, 247 Wall St. reported, citing a Rule 485 filing under the Securities Act of 1933 that allows issuers to shift launch dates without restarting the full regulatory review process. The effective date has now moved five times: from April 2, to April 9, to April 16, to April 23, and now to May 7.
GraniteShares 3x XRP ETF Faces Repeated SEC Scrutiny on Leverage Structure
The delay pattern mirrors the regulatory resistance that ended ProShares’ 3x crypto ETF ambitions. In December 2025, the SEC sent formal letters to ProShares, Direxion, and Tidal Financial citing Rule 18f-4, which caps fund leverage at 200%, forcing ProShares to withdraw its entire 3x crypto lineup, including a 3x XRP product essentially identical to what GraniteShares is now attempting to list. GraniteShares’ eight leveraged funds, covering 3x Long and 3x Short versions for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP, have all been moved to May 7 simultaneously, which 247 Wall St. noted suggests the SEC is working through concerns about the 3x structure itself rather than any asset-specific issue. As crypto.news reported, Teucrium demonstrated that 2x leveraged XRP products are achievable under the current regulatory framework, having launched its 2x Long Daily XRP ETF on NYSE Arca in April 2025 and subsequently built over $440 million in assets.
What the Products Would Offer If They Clear
The GraniteShares 3x Long XRP Daily ETF would deliver 300% of XRP’s daily price movement using swaps and futures contracts, settling entirely in cash with no direct XRP held. The 3x Short XRP ETF would deliver 300% of the inverse daily movement, giving US retail traders their first regulated vehicle to short XRP at triple leverage through a standard brokerage account. GraniteShares Advisors LLC would serve as investment adviser, with Jeff Klearman and Ryan Dofflemeyer as portfolio managers. As crypto.news tracked, spot XRP ETFs have recorded over $1.24 billion in cumulative inflows since November 2025, providing a clear demand signal that GraniteShares is trying to extend into the higher-leverage segment of the market.
The May 7 Window Is Now the Critical Test
If GraniteShares launches on May 7, the delay will be read as routine procedural process, consistent with how Volatility Shares navigated its 2x XRP product. If it delays a sixth time, 247 Wall St. noted, the SEC is likely moving in the same direction it took with ProShares, and the 3x XRP products may not launch in 2026 at all. As crypto.news documented, XRP ETF demand hit an 11-week high in mid-April with $17.11 million flowing in on a single day, and the market has been watching the GraniteShares filing as a potential next catalyst for broader XRP trading infrastructure. The annualized historical volatility on XRP from 2020 to 2025 sat at 95.5%, the highest among the four assets covered in GraniteShares’ filing, which may be part of the SEC’s calculus on the risk profile of a 3x product tied to the asset.
GraniteShares has not issued a public statement explaining the delay, and the Rule 485 filing contains no indication of what specific SEC concerns, if any, are driving the repeated postponements.
Credit: Source link
