It's not that weird, its there job is to enforce not teach. The FDA, EPA, etc set the rules and enforce those rules. They do not hold a company's hand following those rules.
Similarly, if your actual goal is to reduce the occurrences of "bad behaviors" (which is presumably the whole point of creating these rules to begin with), then it doesn't seem that unreasonable to have someone try to lay it out clearly, right? If for no other reason than maybe a bunch of people negatively affected by these behaviors would have been spared since there wouldn't have been this grey area to operate in for so long? That's who we're ultimately doing this for, right? The public that is hurt by securities that are misrepresented? Now, if your goal is to punish people, then yes, the current system makes more sense.
The regulations are designed to protected the general public from companies doing the wrong thing in the name of profit even when the intentions of the people running those companies are good. It's a check on the dark side of capitalism. Are sometimes those rules too complicated or too overbearing? Yes! Are there also people out there just to improve that? Yes, and some of them work in the regulatory agencies!
It's a messy, frustrating process that on the whole seems to be doing a decent job. Most people in US have access to clean water, generally don't have to worry about tainted Advil, or worry their life savings are going to evaporate by just storing it in a bank.
I don't know enough about the specifics of the Coinbase suit yet, but the crypto industry in general seems an awful like the banking industry of the 1800s and early 1900s in the US. During that time there were plenty of companies and people doing the right thing, but there were enough bad actors that something needed to be done. The SEC was born.
This is very likely fallout from FTX, but not because of some nefarious plot against crypto but rather the SEC realized there is a financial sector they need to focus on more closely. A SEC lawsuit is also a starting point for a serious discussion, not a criminal indictment. If the SEC believes there has been criminal behavior, they refer that to the DoJ. The likely outcome if Coinbase has been trying to do the right thing is some sort of settlement (fine) + direction on what to do differently. Then Coinbase will continue on like normal with whatever changes the SEC wanted.
The problem is that a whole generation of wannabe start-up bros, starting with Uber the latest, just cannot be bother with learning and respecting rules it seems. Most of those flog to crypto lately.
To separate this from the emotionally-charged subject for a second: just look at Google vs. Oracle. It took over a decade to decide whether APIs are covered by copyright or not. And the reality is that that was closer to a coin toss than any of us would like to admit, since it was trying to apply a law that in no way imagined something like APIs to APIs, and relied heavily on the judge/etc being able to wrap their heads around it. The verdict could have easily gone the other way. When it comes to how regulations apply to new technologies, the uncomfortable truth is that there is no "objective truth" to the law, and unfortunately comes down more to how much money the parties throw at the problem and legal process. I am sure on the Oracle side there were plenty of people talking just like you: "these people don't respect copyright and flagrantly copy APIs that are obviously protected IP and they think just because they're in hippy open source land the law doesn't apply to them". The reality is that until the verdict, there effectively was no rule around copyright and APIs.
For an opposite example: look at the famous case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980). The patent agency rejected an application for a genetically engineered bacteria that could break down oil, saying you can't patent living organisms. It went to the Supreme Court, that decided 5-4 that they could. Are you going to sit here and tell me this was obvious from the beginning? Given that the patent agency had the opposite opinion than the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court was basically split 50/50 on the decision? Do we think they made the right decision given no background in biology? Do we think Chakrabarty was a wannabe biology bro that didn't care about the law, given that almost every lawyer at the time would have told you was commonly accepted did not allow patenting living organisms?
* > tonsbof law firms, counsultants and experts out there explaining the rules and how to follow them.*
Hopefully you see now that a ton of those law firms are out there telling you "I think we can win on this, it has happened many times before, and the reality is that law really isn't written until we make our case".
You could say that the conclusion is then that it’s all illegal full stop and that all cryptocurrency related businesses in the US should cease operations immediately. But if that’s the case, you’d hope that would be clearly expressed somewhere. Right now, the rules (or rather, the probabilities of facing adverse legal action) are being inferred after the fact by analysing patterns of enforcement action.
Separately, yes, there are also instances of straight-up corruption. It's totally divorced from reality to suggest that collaboration is "only because" of corruption though.
NIH researchers (and their funders, US taxpayers) should be getting paid more in royalties from commercialized research.
I assume you aren't asking that person to "explain" all of securities law in a HN comment
explicitly saying they are is not necessary for them to be.
But when it actually comes time for court filings, which are what really matter, they instead acknowledge that they know exactly what the rules are, but that they "disagree". And why do they disagree? "because for numerous tokens, regulation would require undue effort or not be financially viable [for Coinbase]".
"Your rules are not profitable for us", essentially.
So again, what shall the SEC enforce exactly? If you don't see the endgame here ...