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.
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 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.
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.