> Rather than initiate new rulemaking, Chair Gensler has repeatedly stated through speeches and testimony that the vast majority of digital tokens are securities, and has asked issuers and exchanges that offer, sell, and trade them to come in and register. We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities. For those digital assets that are securities, registration under the current rules is, for many market participants, either not possible or not economically viable given the associated and unnecessary compliance burdens.
"The SEC has told us the rules. We don't like the rules, and the SEC refuses to rewrite the rules for us."
"And registration is hard, or costs money or effort, so it's bad."
Coinbase isn’t innocent.
Is https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67273468/in-re-coinbase... the suit in question? Based on the petition for rulemaking you linked, the SEC's response, and Coinbase's reply, there is a bait-and-switch going on here. Coinbase is asking for a change in how regulations apply to cryptocurrencies, while trying to position this as "merely" asking for a clarification. Or, in short, the rules are clear, Coinbase just doesn't like them.
Scams like pump-and-dumps and wash trading are rampant in cryptocurrency. The markets for cryptocurrencies are unfair by design. The fact that these securities can't be registered is the system working as intended.
>There isn't, and the SEC has already been sued about their failure to provide it.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. The feds, however, almost never lose.
The SEC's failure to respond to this as required by law is the subject of Coinbase's lawsuit against them from April.
It's just simply and outrageously false to pretend there is some clearcut way Coinbase could have registered, or even been sure which assets the SEC was going to consider securities.
There isn't, and the SEC has already been sued about their failure to provide it.
[0] (PDF) https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/5NRidtW8lvwVEfSHpn...