Or you know... the SEC went after Coinbase because they were nakedly criminal, and this exchange isn't.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
When it came to their actual court filings, when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, they ... didn't really say much about a lack of guidance:
> We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities. For those digital assets that are securities, registration under the current rules is, for many market participants, either not possible or not economically viable given the associated and unnecessary compliance burdens
i.e. "it's too much work, and/or not profitable for us".
The SEC isn't obligated to make securities/commodities trading profitable for exchanges.
The SEC said that most cryptocurrencies are securities. That's their guidance, and explains what they need to do - register as a securities exchange.
They just don't like that answer and want a different one that suits them better.
Get a new excuse already and stop blaming other people for how shit crypto is.
While breaking the law.
Which of the assets listed were not reviewed and approved by *every* state in which said exchanges operate?
If there is no contract for future performance, can there be a securities contract?
Is this correct?: If there is no written contract, the state and defendants may refer to Statute of Frauds. (If there is no written contract for future performance valued at greater than like $500, defendant can motion to dismiss due to Statute of Frauds?).
Do the States and the SEC have any statuory duty to provide `def is_a_security(asset) -> bool` service; wherein securities are assessed according to the Howey Test and other case law pertaining to what constitutes a securities contract? Or only after 40+ states (n exchanges per asset per state) have reviewed each asset for list?
The initial registration form is Form S-1. One of the things you disclose in Form S-1 is the risks your firm faces that may affect its valuation.
Coinbase disclosed the following risks in their Form S-1 SEC filing [0]:
> We are subject to an extensive and highly-evolving regulatory landscape and any adverse changes to, or our failure to comply with, any laws and regulations could adversely affect our brand, reputation, business, operating results, and financial condition.
> A particular crypto asset’s status as a “security” in any relevant jurisdiction is subject to a high degree of uncertainty and if we are unable to properly characterize a crypto asset, we may be subject to regulatory scrutiny, investigations, fines, and other penalties, and our business, operating results, and financial condition may be adversely affected.
> As we continue to expand and localize our international activities, our obligations to comply with the laws, rules, regulations, and policies of a variety of jurisdictions will increase and we may be subject to investigations and enforcement actions by regulators and governmental authorities.
Coinbase was acutely aware of the risk that their business may not exactly be legal, they disclosed it in their initial SEC filing. It’s not the SEC’s job to tell Coinbase that what they’re doing might not be legal, it’s up to Coinbase to hire lawyers to advise them.
[0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679788/000162828021...