[joefigura]

Coinbase claims that none of the crypto assets it lists meet that test. For the coins Coinbase lists:

  - Criteria #2 is debatable
  - They don't meet criteria #3
  - Or they don't meet criteria #4

Lots of coins look like commodities. They represent a digital asset, not ownership in a common enterprise or a loan. CFTC officials have said as much, as Coinbase quoted: "the SEC has no authority over pure commodities or their trading venues, whether those commodities are wheat, gold, oil…or crypto assets." - Then-CFTC Commissioner Quintenz

Coinbase believes that all of the tokens they list are securities. The SEC needs to tell Coinbase specifically what it believes they are doing wrong - it will have to eventually, if it files suit.

It feels like a lot of people have knee-jerk crypto=bad reactions. But read their press release - it really sounds like Coinbase is trying their best to comply with U.S. regulation, and the regulators aren't doing their jobs.

And last - For digital assets that do look like securities, the SEC provides no way to register them, and thus vaguely implies that Americans can't own digital securities. That's not their decision to make - they either have to do their job and regulate crypto securities, or get congress to ban them.

Edit: arcticbull pointed out that many digital assets do seem like securities (ICOs). Updated this comment with Coinbase's claim that they don't list any tokens that resemble securities

[arcticbull]

Sure they do. Explanation here. [1]

> Crypto folks: We want regulatory clarity.

> SEC: Check out 'Framework for “Investment Contract” Analysis of Digital Assets' [1]

> Crypto folks: NOT LIKE THAT.

The regulators have been super clear, the crypto folks just don't like what they're seeing. They saw people who didn't ask make money, and people who did ask get shut down. So they didn't ask. But the noble ostrich is only able to keep their head in the sand for so long.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-an...

[joefigura]

That guidance is about ICOs that are investment contracts. Lots of tokens appear to meet the definition of an investment contract, but not everything called an ICO is an investment contract. The whole point of that guidance is to help people issuing an ICO to determine what's an investment contract.

But Coinbase doesn't host any ICOs, and they reject ICO tokens that look like securities! Here is Coinbase's guidance to its users on that point:

https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/getting-started/crypto...

They say as much in their press release, if anyone would read it:

"Coinbase has a rigorous process to analyze and review each digital asset before making it available on our exchange... This process includes an analysis of whether the asset could be considered to be a security, and also considers regulatory compliance and information security aspects of the asset. 90%+ of assets that we review are not ultimately listed on Coinbase because they do not meet these standards."

Coinbase says they don't list digital assets that could be considered securities! Everyone's hand-waving that Coinbase has obviously done something wrong, but no-one can point out specifically what. There's a disagreement on fact here - either the SEC tells Coinbase what it's doing wrong, and they can comply, or they don't and it gets settled by a court.

Edit: Updated the comment since articbull rightly pointed out that Coinbase does list some tokens that were originally issued in ICOs.

[arcticbull]

> But Coinbase doesn't host any ICOs! And they reject ICO tokens!

Sorting Coinbase token pairs alphabetically I only had to get as far as AAVE.

> The firm, originally named ETHLend, raised $16.2 million in an initial coin offering (ICO) in 2017, during which time it sold 1 billion units of its AAVE cryptocurrency - originally named LEND. [1]

Coinbase doesn't publish their standards or approaches, and frankly, it's very much in their interests not to declare something a security. I suspect their process is less than rigorous.

> Coinbase doesn't list digital assets that could be considered securities! Someone needs to actually point to what they're doing wrong.

I believe I linked to the document above :) maybe their lawyers would like to give 'er a skim?

[1] https://www.kraken.com/learn/what-is-aave-lend

[joefigura]

Coinbase's position is that that ICO was not an investment contract. Not everything called an ICO is an invetment contract - the point of that SEC page is to provide guidance on when an ICO is an investment contract. Coinbase's lawyers have certainly given that document a skim, they reference it here where they talk about securities law:

https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/privacy-and-security/o...

There is a disagreement of fact - Coinbase says they don't list any securities, and the SEC claims they do and are violating securities law, without providing any specifics. Assuming the SEC goes forward, a court will have to decide.

[ryan_lane]

> Criteria #2 is debatable

They don't call themselves a gambling site.

> They don't meet criteria #3

"an enterprise in which the fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those offering or selling the investment or of third parties."

Every coin meets #3, because without exchanges, you can't make profit.

> Or they don't meet criteria #4

Coins are speculative in nature. Without promotion, you can't find new investors. If you don't have new investors, the price can't go up.

[GoblinSlayer]

Cryptocurrency is money, you can send them no questions asked, without begging fiat gatekeepers to let the transaction through mining the hell out of your personal information, your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle.

[ryan_lane]

> without begging fiat gatekeepers

To purchase the coins you need to use an exchange. To sell the coins you need an exchange. Cryptocurrency isn't usable without fiat, and it's value is based on fiat.

Unless you're using very specific coins (which aren't allowed on most exchanges), your transaction history is public to the world, which is worse from a privacy perspective than fiat. If you really used coins as your primary currency, it would be pretty trivial to obtain your identity from your transaction history.

[GoblinSlayer]

>Cryptocurrency isn't usable without fiat

You mean it's not convertible to fiat when fiat fails? That's what I mean too: fiat fails.

[ProjectArcturis]

This isn't about coins, it's about staking.

[GoblinSlayer]

It's about coins having no use except for staking.