“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by ceejayoz on Monday June 12, 2023 @07:40PM (#36303012)

> Can you imagine if, back when the SEC first formed in 1934, they put out a press release saying "the vast majority of stocks are securities and need to come register, but not The Bank Of New York, their stock is not a security".

This is basically what happened. Mortgage loans and certificates of deposit, for example, aren’t securities by judicial clarification, not definition in the law. (See: Marine Bank v. Weaver)

The Howey test isn’t that complicated, and Coinbase Earn ticked all four boxes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by everfree on Monday June 12, 2023 @07:54PM (#36303145)

(Removed, I had confused Coinbase Earn with Coinbase Lend.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by ceejayoz on Monday June 12, 2023 @07:56PM (#36303161)

Coinbase is being sued specifically for Earn. How is it not relevant?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by everfree on Monday June 12, 2023 @08:24PM (#36303381)

Sorry, I confused Coinbase Earn (staking services) with Coinbase Lend, which was a previous loan product of theirs that was targeted and shut down by the SEC in 2021.

Still, Earn may well be a security, but that's a product that will fit very cleanly into current securities law when it reaches the court, and it concerns a company's product rather than an entire new asset class, so it's not so egregious that the SEC doesn't provide clarity on it.

The big problem is with their lack of clarity on the cryptocurrencies themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]