But that's ridiculously inefficient compared to just going to the regulatory agency before you do the ambiguous thing and having them clarify it. Except that they won't do it.

Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize (or reward) Coinbase for their shady business strategy? Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws?

That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now?

> Coinbase makes their money by working in a grey area. Why should the public subsidize large businesses in this way?

Because the public through its government is what created the grey area, so it should cover the cost of its lack of clarity, as a disincentive for causing it.

> Why can't it be part of Coinbase's business strategy to remain on the correct side of the law and then lobby congress for changes to those laws?

The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to?

> That's how it's been done for the past two centuries. Why change now?

The best time to change a bad rule is two centuries ago. The second best time is immediately.

> The entire point is that nobody will say whether they're allowed to do this, so they can't even know if they're on the correct side of the law. How dumb is it that the only way to find out if you can legally do something is to do it without knowing whether you're allowed to?

Isn't that the point of hiring an attorney, or if you're Coinbase, a large team of lawyers? We don't know what Coinbase's lawyers said to them (attorney client privilege). But this could just be a legal ruse, right? Raise doubt? Even though Coinbase knew they were in a shady area and raised it in their S1 filing?

Or do you think Coinbase was really this stupid and naive?

Lawyers can tell you whether an ambiguity exists, not how it will be resolved. To find that out you have to do it and then see if you get punished, which is absurd.

Or avoid operating in ambiguity altogether. It's not really that hard!