That isn't much-- I agree-- but I doubt that they know enough about the time's intended allegations to respond more specifically. And if they did respond too specifically presumably the times would shift their allegations to different specifics in any case, making a general response the only durable one.

Interestingly, other commenters here characterized Coinbases' message with language such as "incredibly thorough prebuttal" and suggested that this indicated that the story was devastating. You seem to be arguing the opposite, that it is perfectly generic and is thus indicative of a traditional cover-up approach. From this it seems to me that regardless of what approach they took it would be characterized as evidence against them.