4 ms·

> the SEC refuses to set forth clear criteria as to which crypto tokens it considers securities, and which crypto tokens it does not consider securities This i

> the SEC refuses to set forth clear criteria as to which crypto tokens it considers securities, and which crypto tokens it does not consider securities This is a PR soundbite. Coinbase has milked this one quite extensively. "Woe is us, we're trying to do the right thing but the SEC won't tell us what to do!" It's not actually accurate. And when the people responsible for writing become Coinbase's lawyers, not their marketing team, and the rubber hits the road in court, Coinbase says no such thing. This is the actual crux of their complaint, in their own words: > for many tokens, registering is not possible due to effort involved, or not economically viable. Coinbase doesn't like the cost of having to register securities for the shitcoin du jour - there's no money to be made. But the SEC isn't obligated to make a profitable business model for Coinbase. But it sounds far better to get the crypto club and libertarians up in arms about unhelpful government organizations.

everfree 3y ago
Where has the SEC stated whether they consider the second largest cryptocurrency, Ethereum, to be a security or not (and thus under their jurisdiction or not)? If "missing criteria" is nothing but a PR soundbite, perhaps I missed where the SEC shared that criteria.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  The last I recall is that the SEC considered all crypto to be a security. And Coinbase is absolutely aware of it. In fact, in the previous sentences to my quote, in their court filing, they are aware, but disagree: > We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities. And you seem to miss my point. Not once in Coinbase's lawsuit did they actually say "We'd love to comply, we just don't know how to". In fact what they did say was that they knew how to comply, "but the cost and effort makes it not profitable for us". But because of their PR everyone is latching on to this spin of "we'd love to follow regulation, but we don't know how and no-one will tell us!" So why didn't they say that in court?
  - everfree 3y ago
    > The last I recall is that the SEC considered all crypto to be a security. That's not true. "US regulators including the SEC agree that Bitcoin, which is by far the largest digital asset, isn't a security." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/09/why-crypto-flinches-when-sec-calls-coins-securities-quicktake/84dd58ee-06d8-11ee-b74a-5bdd335d4fa2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/09/why-crypt... The big unanswered question is whether they consider Ethereum to be one. > Not once in Coinbase's lawsuit did they actually say "We'd love to comply, we just don't know how to". They seem to say that pretty explicitly on Page 14 of their Wells submission. https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/2pW56ln6rPJ7koLHlu2L8G/5041e0166c408698b621fde543539d76/2023-04-19_Coinbase_Wells_Submission.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/2pW56ln6rPJ7koLHlu... > In fact what they did say was that they knew how to comply, "but the cost and effort makes it not profitable for us". I don't see anywhere where they said that. > So why didn't they say that in court? They did say that in court. "For years, Coinbase has voluntarily submitted to regulation by multiple overlapping regulatory bodies, has adhered to the public and limited formal guidance from the SEC, senior SEC Staff, and the courts about the application of securities law to its industry, and has begged the SEC for guidance about how it thinks the federal securities laws map onto the digital asset industry as the SEC’s actions reflected an escalating but undisclosed change in its own view of its authority." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.599908/gov.uscourts.nysd.599908.22.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...
    - Animats 3y ago
      The SEC does not consider Bitcoin to be a security because there is no issuer. Etherium is currently a maybe because of the change to proof of stake. Miners are competitors, but stakers all want the price to go up. So there's a common enterprise.

everfree 3y ago

Where has the SEC stated whether they consider the second largest cryptocurrency, Ethereum, to be a security or not (and thus under their jurisdiction or not)? If "missing criteria" is nothing but a PR soundbite, perhaps I missed where the SEC shared that criteria.

FireBeyond 3y ago
The last I recall is that the SEC considered all crypto to be a security. And Coinbase is absolutely aware of it. In fact, in the previous sentences to my quote, in their court filing, they are aware, but disagree: > We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities. And you seem to miss my point. Not once in Coinbase's lawsuit did they actually say "We'd love to comply, we just don't know how to". In fact what they did say was that they knew how to comply, "but the cost and effort makes it not profitable for us". But because of their PR everyone is latching on to this spin of "we'd love to follow regulation, but we don't know how and no-one will tell us!" So why didn't they say that in court?
- everfree 3y ago
  > The last I recall is that the SEC considered all crypto to be a security. That's not true. "US regulators including the SEC agree that Bitcoin, which is by far the largest digital asset, isn't a security." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/09/why-crypto-flinches-when-sec-calls-coins-securities-quicktake/84dd58ee-06d8-11ee-b74a-5bdd335d4fa2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/09/why-crypt... The big unanswered question is whether they consider Ethereum to be one. > Not once in Coinbase's lawsuit did they actually say "We'd love to comply, we just don't know how to". They seem to say that pretty explicitly on Page 14 of their Wells submission. https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/2pW56ln6rPJ7koLHlu2L8G/5041e0166c408698b621fde543539d76/2023-04-19_Coinbase_Wells_Submission.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/2pW56ln6rPJ7koLHlu... > In fact what they did say was that they knew how to comply, "but the cost and effort makes it not profitable for us". I don't see anywhere where they said that. > So why didn't they say that in court? They did say that in court. "For years, Coinbase has voluntarily submitted to regulation by multiple overlapping regulatory bodies, has adhered to the public and limited formal guidance from the SEC, senior SEC Staff, and the courts about the application of securities law to its industry, and has begged the SEC for guidance about how it thinks the federal securities laws map onto the digital asset industry as the SEC’s actions reflected an escalating but undisclosed change in its own view of its authority." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.599908/gov.uscourts.nysd.599908.22.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...
  - Animats 3y ago
    The SEC does not consider Bitcoin to be a security because there is no issuer. Etherium is currently a maybe because of the change to proof of stake. Miners are competitors, but stakers all want the price to go up. So there's a common enterprise.