[pietjepuk88]

> I shall refer you to my first post up there!

No, that's what _you_ think the reason is or should be. I'm asking what the reason (or answer) is that the _SEC_ gives in the application process.

> The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities, and you categorically cannot operate unregistered security schemes. The SEC is saying that these things must be registered, and until/unless they are registered they must stop.

My question was about the registration. If you _want_ to register, and the SEC replies with "<silence>", what are you supposed to do? Or if you ask if you should register, and get met with silence. I don't disagree with your assessment of "The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities", but instead of answering the question upfront they seem to prefer to punish/fine after the fact. Worst of all, they ban Kraken from ever offering any staking services in the future, even _if_ there is/will be a legal way to do it.

I _understand_ Gary's SEC's stance of keeping everything deliberately vague that way, because it gives him a lot of power to punish and discriminate on a one-off basis. I agree with Peirce (and CFTC's Pham) that's it's a bad and very lazy way to "regulate" (air quotes) though.

[Nursie]

> If you _want_ to register, and the SEC replies with "<silence>", what are you supposed to do?

Not start selling your unregistered scheme! That's the point here, in terms of what actions you are allowed to take, if you don't have registration, you cannot sell the security.

It's not that they 'prefer' punishing after the fact - there's not supposed to be a fact.

Your options are to walk away or find some way to get them to take action. Your options do not include "fuck it we'll just go ahead and see if it bites us".