[true_religion]

They ought to. Giving advice is the difference between having the government work with the people, on the same side, and having it be an adversary.

The goal should be legal compliance and productive companies.

Not clarifying what you will or will not prosecute simply creates unnecessary fear and distrust of the system. Think of all the crime that would not be committed if only the SEC said it was criminal before hand. Maybe thousands of people wouldn’t have lost money to crypto scams if there were greater clarity.

[VWWHFSfQ]

SEC doesn't give legal advice because they don't make the laws.

Want legal advice? Talk to a lawyer. But if your council tells you it's OK to push some boundaries then don't be surprised if you get slapped. And if you don't like getting slapped then you can go to court. Which is exactly what is happening. Seems like the system is working as intended.

[jedberg]

The SEC enforces the law, and it should be totally normal for them to say "this is how we plan to enforce this law". By not saying so, they create a lot of unnecessary churn.

Imagine you are outside a store, and there is a police officer outside. You ask them "If I go inside and take some bread off the shelf and walk out without paying, is that ok?". Should the officer say "talk to a lawyer" or should they say "I would arrest you on the way out"?

They aren't offering legal advice, they are just telling you how they will enforce the law. And heck, maybe you'll go to court and get it overturned. But at least you know what enforcement actions will be taken.

[elliekelly]

You wouldn’t need to ask the SEC that hypothetical because you can see their long history of bringing cases against “bread thieves” and (correctly) infer that they would bring a similar suit against you for the same or similar conduct. To the extent you think your hypothetical situation differs enough from the case history that you and your lawyers are genuinely unsure (or, more commonly, genuinely believe they wouldn’t charge you) then you can ask them via a No Action Letter which is basically a formal way of asking them “What would you do if I did XYZ?” The risk, of course, is that they’ll tell you they would view XYZ as a violation of federal securities laws and take action accordingly. There’s also the risk that they’ll change their mind— it’s not a promise or even a permanent reprieve. It’s just one “police officer” telling one person how they would hypothetically respond to that one fact pattern at that one moment in time. The next “officer” might take an entirely different view.

[VWWHFSfQ]

First of all, not everything can be reduced to the absolute most simplistic of metaphors like you're trying to do.

Second,

> Last month, the SEC issued Coinbase with a Wells notice, which is often one of the final steps before the regulator formally issues charges. It generally lays out the framework of the regulatory argument and offers the potentially accused an opportunity to rebut the SEC’s claims.

It sounds like Coinbase has gotten the answers they were looking for, they just don't like it.

[dlubarov]

It doesn't seem like Coinbase has received such answers, they just know that some sort of enforcement action is coming. As per the article, "[Armstrong says] the company has not got any more information on the specific issues the SEC has".

E.g. here's Gensler refusing to answer whether the SEC considers ETH a security - https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003

[figassis]

You don't need to make the laws to give advice. Are you saying the SEC can't or isn't required? Because not being required does not mean they shouldn't do it.

[mrguyorama]

The vast majority of government workers (including such lowly people as the workers who check applications for food stamps) cannot give advice because humans are fallible and will get it wrong sometimes. The government doesn't want people suing them for that situation, so they just ban all advice basically.

[mthoms]

Is that correct? If I am taking a company public, or some other activity that falls under their purview, can I not ask the SEC to provide guidance on the appropriate measures to take?

Yes, of course, a lawyer can provide that. But surely, the SEC should be able to provide advice or point to resources on how to be compliant if needed?

If not, I'm really surprised.

[true_religion]

Social workers seem to give advice. IRS also looks like it can advise you as to what you need to do to avoid further action against you.

It’s not as if no one can ever get advise from the government bodies.

[linuxftw]

The problem is always something like this: "I'm telling the SEC that I'm doing A, B, C. SEC says it's legal. Later, SEC finds out I'm really doing A, B, C, D, which is illegal"

The SEC isn't dumb enough to be trapped into an opinion that can be twisted around.

[JohnFen]

But this is only a "problem" for those who want to ride right on the line of what's technically legal. People who strive to stay within what the law is trying to accomplish, who are with the spirit of the law rather than the letter, have no such issues.

[true_religion]

I’m just coming at this from a consumer point of view. I want the SEC to be effective so when I invest in some new commodity or security then I know that it at least legal and I won’t lose all my money due to the government declaring it not.

[elliekelly]

That isn’t the function of the SEC. They make sure issuers have complied with disclosure requirements so investors can make their own decisions. They make sure you get full and fair disclosure and that’s about it. They’re more like the FDA’s regulation of cosmetics (here are the rules, we’ll assume you’re following them and we’ll take action if/when we suspect you’re not) rather than the FDA’s regulation of pharmaceuticals (prove to us this works and is safe before you sell it).