This is a losing argument, IMO. Reviewing the S1 is not a complete review of the legitimacy of a business model, and, of course, cannot predict whether a compa

This is a losing argument, IMO. Reviewing the S1 is not a complete review of the legitimacy of a business model, and, of course, cannot predict whether a company will comply with regulations in the future. It’s notable your argument doesn’t address the fact that the S1 disclosures seemed accurate, e.g.: > [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. It seems coinbase knew there was a substantial risk and proceeded anyway. > Any crypto sceptic who does not see a problem with this is tainted by their priors Someone shoulda stopped me is never a good defense. Perhaps they should have. But if it was so clear to them, it should have been even more clear to you, and you have the primary responsibility for your actions and decisions. It’s up to coinbase and the others to figure out how to create a legal business model around crypto, not the SEC.