5 ms·
I quote from TFA: Coinbase also writes in great detail in the S-1 about the risk that the SEC might bring a lawsuit exactly like the one they jus
by bb88 3y ago
I quote from TFA:
Coinbase also writes in great detail in the S-1 about
the risk that the SEC might bring a lawsuit exactly like
the one they just have:
[W]e could be subject to legal or regulatory action in the event the
SEC, a foreign regulatory authority, or a court were to determine that a supported crypto asset
currently offered, sold, or traded on our platform is a “security” under applicable laws… [W]e could
be subject to judicial or administrative sanctions for failing to offer or sell the crypto asset in
compliance with the registration requirements, or for acting as a broker, dealer, or national
securities exchange without appropriate registration.
[T]here is regulatory uncertainty regarding the status of our staking activities under the U.S.
federal securities laws.
It's pretty clear they knew they were operating in a shady area from their S1 filing -- and so now you're surprised the regulatory hammer fell on them?
Imagine if a company was selling "ground human meat" (see the movie "Soylent Green"). And they did it, well, because the market for ground human meat was suddenly exploding! I mean, in their S1 they might say "Sure this might be illegal, the FDA might take regulatory action against us." But also "Ground human meat is one hot market right now, you don't want to be left out on this rocket that's going straight to the moon!"
- rockemsockem 3y agoSounds like they expected in advance for the SEC to do something stupid and were very upfront about that fact. Now that the SEC has done a stupid thing they are complaining that the SEC in fact did the stupid thing. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
- scott_w 3y agoEnforcement agencies don't have to stop you ahead of time, even if that action is disallowed or even illegal. For example, police officers will regularly sit by the side of the road with a speed gun. They'll make no attempt to stop you driving at 150mph on the motorway but, in the UK, you'll receive a court summons through your door after the fact (and probably lose your license).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- blq10 3y agoThey are not required to do so, no. However, abusing retroactive enforcement does create a pretty clear case that the SEC is not interested in forming a regulatory framework for the exchange of digital commodities - instead preferring to import securities frameworks and punishing participants in the nascent industry. Why should anyone reasonably believe the SEC has intentions to allow crypto to exist, and that coinage just did it wrong?
- scott_w 3y ago> However, abusing retroactive enforcement Statements like this create a pretty clear case that you haven’t read or shown any real interest in the SEC investigation and litigation related to crypto.
- blq10 3y agoHow is this not retroactive enforcement? The particular product under investigation and or litigation was around for 3 or 4 years, and while the SEC is free to reclassify financial products at will - the fact that they did so and are now attempting to extract company-destroying damages indicates that they did not particularly care.
- sebzim4500 3y agoAnd if that same policeman happened to be speaking to parliament and was asked whether going 150 mph was legal he would be able to give a clear answer.
- scott_w 3y agoTwo things: 1. Firstly, if the law isn't settled, then no they wouldn't. 2. The SEC weren't being asked by Congress, they were being asked by Coinbase. So no, your attempt to torture the analogy doesn't work at all.