It's a bit like that, except if the law is incredibly vague and not written by elected officials.

They are, all SEC rules are based on properly passed legislation...

We can hope that SCOTUS tears Chevron apart this term. Then Congress will be forced to actually do its job, something it hates doing because it puts responsibility for decisions in its box.

Ah yes, because the body that can barely get through a few laws every month surely will handle the utter deluge of work when they have to write all the petty little details of any recommendation by any portion of the federal government on any little issue.

The point of overturning Chevron is entirely to handicap the government in it's ability to regulate anything.

The fewer the laws they get through the better, especially when every bill they pass seems to be a conglomeration of 10-20 other bills which should be considered, written, and voted on separately. The point of overturning Chevron is to get rid of a current bias toward accepting the even-nonsensical interpretations of law by unelected officials over clear reason and sense.

And Coinbase has sued the SEC for failing to follow this "properly passed legislation."

So, I guess, courts will answer that question as well.

And like all court cases, everything must be followed with the words "In my opinion", until a judge rules.

The term "based on" is doing an enormous amount of work in that sentence.

It’s more like asking a cop if you can sit somewhere and they give you a look and won’t tell you, but 3 years after you sit down they book you for trespassing.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/sorry-crypto-world-sec-isnt-ba...

FYI, that is 100% something a cop can do in the US. They have no obligation to warn you not to commit a crime, and are legally allowed to even encourage you to do a crime. They can provide all the means and motivation to do a crime, and if a jury can be convinced that you would have crimed anyway if you had those resources through other means, it's not entrapment.

I think a reasonable person would agree that if you ask a cop if you can do something and they won't answer but then take enforcement action against you later on, that would be bullshit.

Of course that all depends on your belief that the cop didn't give you an earlier answer that you ignored.

It acts like a security, smells like a security, trades like a security, but it's NOT A SECURITY, so give me new laws for this thing I won't define!

No I mean they ask "what should we do and what IS THE LAW?" and SEC say "we don't know"

No, again. The SEC has told them the law, then they keep ignoring that and saying "no what is the law we want," to which the SEC say "I don't know"

Do you think, perhaps, that the SEC not providing answers is just allowing more time (rope) for the crypto co's to hang themselves with?