[maccard]

The problem is that the disclosure of risks is written in such a way that captures the existing situatio nand makes it hard for a valid crypto firm to not post... exactly this.

> The system is rigged and other truthy arguments are all but standard operating procedure for whatever crytpo idea someone comes up with.

But remember that applies to both sides of the coin - the SEC disclosure of risks claiming there's a huge risk of monetary loss _is_ true, but it's also unavoidable as (to my understanding) there isn't currently a way for coinbase to be FDIC insured.

> Those arguments doesn't make mean we shouldn't be skeptical.

You should be incredibly skeptical, but you should be informed of what you're skeptical about.

[duxup]

>The problem is that the disclosure of risks is written in such a way that captures the existing situatio nand makes it hard for a valid crypto firm to not post... exactly this.

Because ... they aren't FDIC insured nor do they provide any reliable protections for their user's money?

It's hard not to post it, because it is true.

[maccard]

The problem is that there is no alternative statement for them to make. The disclosure of risks require them to be FDIC insured or state there is a risk of loss in bankruptcy, and given they don't have the option of FDIC insurance, they have to declare the risk. The problem is that coinbase don't have the choice to be insured, yet they get labelled as though they're yolo'ing it _whether they are or not_ because the FDIC don't insure the asset class they're trading.

[tekknik]

Coinbase is insured. Crypto balances are insured against theft, and fiat balances are deposited into accounts that are then FDIC (or whatever is equivalent for other countries) insured.

https://www.coinbase.com/legal/insurance