SEC: “No. Stop playing games. You have to register.”
Coinbase lists less than 300 of the tens of thousands of cryptocurrencies out there - indeed a tiny minority of them, and they do have some kind of legal review process, so while that claim may well be untrue, it's not absurd on its face.
The first step of effective regulation is to state exactly what is out of compliance, which they finally did only a few days ago by listing which particular coins are the ones that put Coinbase out of compliance.
The second step is to explain why those particular coins cause them to be non-compliant and why other coins (Bitcoin) are exempt, in such a way that Coinbase has rules they can apply to determine whether a particular new coin is compliant or not. That clarity is the part we're still waiting for.
Nah, the alternative is why cops get away with everything via qualified immunity. Conmen don’t get given a pat list of what is and isn’t allowed; no one wants to play the “but you saaaaaaid!” game that results.
Yes, they do. Civil courts are full of almost nothing besides "but you said" games. You're just describing the status quo of how law works.
Same with securities. The Howey test exists. The courts and Congress occasionally find a tweak that needs making, but they aren’t likely to be impressed by shenanigans like “oh it isn’t a shared enterprise because of this cute quirky thing”.
https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/bitcoin-is-the-only-coin-th...
> Elsewhere in the speech, Hinman explained: "If the network on which [a] token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized — where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts — the assets may not represent an investment contract."
Eth is fairly uniquely complicated by the fact that it probably went from security to commodity before they could get smacked for the security period.
With only BTC Coinbase would not be an exchange but a wallet.
Like I said, I don't care what happens - but as an outside observer - it's ridiculous.
If you'd like to provide a rebuttal to that, be my guest. But childish swipes that don't address the point being made are just that... childish.
"Please don't post comments that don't contribute anything to the discussion."
as highly relevant to the discussion.
Your comment is not only pointless and petty, it's wrong.
If you don't understand something, the easiest thing is to condemn it and call the person who made the comment stupid.
"It" here would have to be the situation/article, right?
The thing they don't care about is what will happen to Coinbase in the future. They're not reading that.
Even if we assume Coinbase is in the wrong here, a hypothetical exchange with better vetting could also list dozens of coins and be entirely legit with no securities.
The SEC has been super clear for most crypto except Bitcoin and Ether.
Yes. Start with the SEC’s complaint against Coinbase: SOL, ADA, MATIC and ten others [1].
Beyond that, ask a securities lawyer or ask the SEC. Coinbase did. The SEC answered. Coinbase didn’t like the answer, and focussed its messaging on irrelevant statements (or a lack thereof) by Gensler about Bitcoin and Ether. If someone only cash traded those two, they would have a legitimate argument against the SEC’s ambiguity. But practically nobody does: instead they operate unlicensed and illegally-configured securities outfits.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr2023-1... 114
Anyone: "Okay then, is [insert ANY crypto here other than BTC] a security?"
SEC: "We decline to answer, or give a hint, but the vast majority of digital tokens are securities!"
I really don't care what happens, or how it got to this point, but this state of affairs is absolutely and unequivocally ridiculous and absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhA1dZXeao0