> All this is close to what the SEC requires.
No, the SEC requires cryptoassets to slot perfectly into existing regulation, making it de-facto impossible for any public-ledger-based-securities exchange to operate. I cover that in my comment here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36303345
Contrast that with the proposed UK law, which applies existing regulations in a commonsense way while realizing ones and zeroes in a public ledger behave fundamentally differently than the legal contracts they're used to regulating, and that those ones and zeroes absolutely, categorically cannot do certain things that 1930s laws might ask of them.
> This is probably more "clarity" than Coinbase wants.
Two months after the crypto bill was proposed, Brian Armstrong publicly stated (at a conference in London) that the UK's system is better for Coinbase than the US's system in the sense that there is one regulator providing clear guidelines (FCA) rather than two regulators squabbling over jurisdiction (SEC and CFTC).
He said: "You don't have this unfortunate thing happening where the CFTC and the SEC are having a turf battle. We actually have contradictory statements from the heads of the CFTC and the SEC coming out almost every few weeks. How's a business going to operate in that environment? We just want a clear rulebook."
So Coinbase has come out explicitly, emphatically, saying that the UK's crypto bill is exactly the level of clarity that they want.
"The government’s view is that cryptoassets and the activities underpinning their use should follow the standards expected of other similar financial services activities, commensurate to the risks they pose, while harnessing potential benefits of the technology behind them."
...
"HM Treasury proposes to capture cryptoasset activities provided in or to the United Kingdom."
...
"For cryptoasset issuance and disclosures, the government proposes to follow a similar approach to that for securities and apply regulation when the asset is admitted to trading on a regulated cryptoasset trading venue and therefore becomes exchangeable for fiat currency, or subject to a public offer."
...
"The government considers public offers of cryptoassets – including ICOs where a fund raiser creates new tokens and sells them to investors – may meet the definition of a security offering"
...
"In practice many cryptoasset exchanges play a central role in the cryptoasset ecosystem – conducting many more activities than solely operating a trading venue (e.g. custody, post-trade activities, proprietary trading, lending and admission of cryptoassets to a platform). Some venues may also issue their own native cryptoasset or act as intermediaries for the distribution of stablecoins. This is sometimes referred to as “vertical integration” or “agglomeration”. Accordingly, the government expects, as a minimum, that these entities follow rules covering all of these activities – not just those relevant for operating a trading venue. To illustrate, a major cryptoasset exchange would be required to comply with the issuance and disclosure rules for assets that they admit for trading (Chapter 5), the rules relating to the operation of a trading venue (Chapter 6) and certain surveillance and reporting requirements to detect and prevent market abuse (Chapter 9). Additionally, and depending on the sorts of activities they undertake, they would also need to comply with rules for market intermediaries (Chapter 7), cryptoasset custody rules for cryptoassets which they safeguard or safeguard and administer (Chapter 8) and rules for operating a cryptoasset lending platform (Chapter 10)."
All this is close to what the SEC requires. If it works like a security, a broker, or an exchange, it's regulated like a security, a broker, or an exchange.
This is probably more "clarity" than Coinbase wants.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...