> _why_ shouldn't the above apply to Coinbase?

Running the banking system on permissioned blockchains, where it makes sense, is simpler than extending federal protection to what currently behaves like a gambling industry. Also, spending the tax dollars of the young, poor and/or financially-conservative to subsidise a demographically-constrained pursuing a high risk / high reward strategy is inefficient.

As I understand it, because the Cryptocurrencies are not legal tender:

"Cryptocurrency is not legal tender and is not backed by the government. Cryptocurrency, (including but not limited to tokens such as bitcoin, litecoin and ethereum, and stablecoins such as USDC), is not subject to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or Securities Investor Protection Corporation protections." [https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-pol...]

So any Bitcoin etc... you hold in your wallet at Coinbase could just be sold off to pay for debt if a bankruptcy occurs (which doesn't happen if a FDIC bank goes bankrupt).

I don’t know about “should” but those protections don’t extend for Coinbase customers

Taking those protections would mean a lot more regulation for the industry, regulation they’ve worked hard to avoid

Because their customers' assets are not segregated.