News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense. Parent comment

Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @02:57AM (#36306549)
You could make them pay for it.

Also there is potential fine revenue.

But for big enough companies, some amount of taxpayer-paid analysis makes sense. It ultimately benefits consumers.

Isn't analyzing the S1 "pro bono legal advice" to begin with?

And they did have legal opinions, just not from the SEC that is still almost entirely refusing to evaluate crypto tokens. Would a no action letter have been feasible?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @03:17AM (#36306710)
> Would a no action letter have been feasible

Probably not, given the integrated broker-exchange-custodian model. But that’s the point. We specifically outlawed that in 1934. Coinbase was counting on rules being changed in the midst of regulatory inertia.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday June 13, 2023 @03:54AM (#36306999)
If it's clear enough for certain popular tokens then the SEC should have just declared them as securities years ago.
[ Parent | on HN ]