Comment by everfree | Hacker News Reader

Comment by everfree | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> everything not BTC/ETH is a security, please register them

Coinbase tried repeatedly to register them with the SEC and was turned away, which seems to be lost on your point.

From the article:

> The SEC will not let crypto companies “come in and register” – we tried.

> The Wells notice comes out of the investigation that we disclosed last summer. Shortly after that investigation began, the SEC asked us if we would be interested in discussing a potential resolution that would include registering some portion of our business with the SEC. We said absolutely yes. Specifically, the SEC asked us to provide our views on what a registration path for Coinbase could look like – because there is no existing way for a crypto exchange to register. We developed and proposed two different registration models. We spent millions of dollars on legal support to build these proposals and repeatedly asked for the SEC’s feedback. We got none. We also reiterated that we stand by our listings process – we don’t list securities today – and repeatedly invited the SEC to raise any questions about any asset at all on our platform. They raised none.

> Coinbase tried repeatedly to register them with the SEC and was turned away, which seems to be lost on your point

My entire point is that the SEC doesn't like them, to them saying "please register" is the same as saying "get bent". I specifically mentioned that those registration papers are going straight into the trash.

"Please register" is disingenuous bureaucrat speak for "get bent" in the same way that calls for "clarifications on the SEC's policies" are disingenous bureaucrat speak for "get bent".

If that was your point, then wouldn't the correct conclusion be that calls for SEC clarity are genuine, not disingenuous?

Saying "please register" when you really mean "get bent" doesn't count as SEC clarity in my book.

The SEC stonewalled Coinbase at every attempt to submit a registration. It's not like Coinbase registered and was declined.

I think "all these crypto projects are securities" is a perfectly clear stance. Coinbase clearly disagrees, so their calls for clarity are actually calls for "please change your mind". People then go ahead and launch public offerings anyways, and act all surprised when SEC files enforcement actions.

Some call it regulation by enforcement, but really I see all along the SEC has been clear in saying that it's all securities. Now, enforcement actions go in front of a court and the court may disagree with the SEC, which then clarifies regulation by setting a legal precedent for the SEC being wrong.

Edit: this is how I think about it: there is a gradient from "clearly under SEC jurisdiction" and "clearly not". The SEC says "most of this gradient is under my jurisdiction", crypto projects say "no it's not". Clarity in this situation means drawing lines in the gradient, and when enforcement actions get filed then a court gets to weigh and draw lines for them.

The calls for clarity are firstly clarity about registration. Failing that, clarity about jurisdiction to work around the lack of clarity on registration. Nobody gives a shit about whether or not their dogcoins are technically securities or what the gradient is.

The SEC is considered by many to be acting in bad faith by not clarifying regulation, which in effect is an abuse of a pocket veto of sorts over crypto.

Other jurisdictions do not have this issue. The SEC stands alone.

> I think "all these crypto projects are securities" is a perfectly clear stance.

That's not the part of their stance that's unclear. The unclear part is the part where they say "please register" when they really mean "get bent".

> their calls for clarity are actually calls for "please change your mind"

Coinbase's calls for clarity are actually calls for "you asked us to register, so let us submit a registration application already".

> really I see all along the SEC has been clear in saying that it's all securities.

Again that's not the part of their stance that's unclear to me.

> Now, enforcement actions go in front of a court and the court may disagree with the SEC, which then clarifies regulation by setting a legal precedent for the SEC being wrong.

The SEC's job is to write clear regulations, not to invite corporations to pay $1000/hr lawyers to conduct mind-reading sessions in court.

It's not clear because their words don't match their actions. The SEC says they are securities but then refuses to regulate them like securities. If they are securities then they should allow Coinbase to register them. If they are not securities then they should not allow Coinbase to register them. But instead they say yes, they are securities and you have to register them, but no we won't let you register them, and we are going to take legal action against you because you didn't do the thing we told you to do and you tried to do, but we didn't let you. The SEC is clearly acting in bad faith.

It's not really the SECs job to just decide that Americans cannot own many crypto assets, which is de-facto what they're doing by refusing to regulate crypto assets that look like securities. That ought to be a legislative decision - instead the SEC is making it by refusing to engage with the crypto industry

Reply on news.ycombinator.com