“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 jbverschoor on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @12:53AM (#36305527)

Coinbase already has a license, but they're not using it. If it's not even clear what a security is, why would you register as a securities broker/exchange?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @12:54AM (#36305544)

> If it's not even clear what a security is, why would you register as a securities broker/exchange

False condition. The SEC has made it clear that various crypto, e.g. Solana, are securities. If you want to trade those, you must register. Again, if you just want to cash trade Bitcoin and Ether, the SEC has shown zero inclination of messing with you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by shawabawa3 on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @02:01AM (#36306098)

I can only find a source from 2 days ago that says the SEC claims Solana is a security.

Before that afaik the only cryptocurrency the sec had explicitly said was a security was XRP which coinbase delisted

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @02:32AM (#36306328)

In 2017, the SEC issued the DAO Report [1]. It—together with guidance around ICOs—made the status quo per the SEC super clear. Investigations and enforcement take time, but the rules of the game were known; the industry had been working to change the status quo.

If you want to know whether something is legal or not, you talk to a lawyer or (less reliably) law enforcement. When Coinbase asked the SEC if it needed to register, without—to my knowledge—exception, it said yes.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]