[legitster]

I think part of the issue here is that the SEC is being decidedly coy. The remedy they are seeking is for the industry to essentially end itself.

I think it's fine to say that the SEC is trying it's best to apply a mandate and them seeking guidance from congress are all good ideas, but them beating around the bush and attempting some subterfuge is not a good look for a regulatory agency.

[rchaud]

> The remedy they are seeking is for the industry to essentially end itself.

Or in other words "register as securities exchange".

[legitster]

... which would require ditching all of their customers and establishing a brokerage. We're talking about a fundamentally different business that is not distinguishable from any existing business. Coinbase as we know it would be dead.

[danaris]

And what's the fundamental problem with that?

No business has an inalienable right to government support or sanction for their business model, least of all when their business is 100% in an area that is brand-new, poorly-understood, poorly-regulated, and absolutely rife with scams.

[legitster]

Sure, but I don't think it should be the government's prerogative to shut down businesses either, just on the grounds that regulators find the industry annoying. If people want to buy their silly crypto trinkets I don't see how moving it behind the curtain of a brokerage actually helps anyone.

I mean, the whole SEC thing is a bit of theater: they can't actually do anything to protect against frauds and scams and bad investments. All they can do is to push assets into the high-speed traffic of professional traders and hope that the market sorts things out for itself.

[danaris]

"Find the industry annoying" is an interesting way to characterize a regulatory agency that has investigated a situation and determined that it breaks the law.

[legitster]

Uh, that's not at all how I would characterize the situation. There was no real investigation - the determination that crypto assets are securities is really a philosophical one. Like a court determining whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable.

And again, the implication here is that anyone buying and selling a crypto asset outside of a brokerage is breaking the law. According to the grounds the SEC is using here, if I wanted your Dogecoin there would be no legal way for us to transfer it without involving a brokerage firm.

[Fatnino]

Like when the government shut down a startup by some guy named Ross who was just trying to make a buck on the internet with his unregulated pharmacy. What a travesty.

/s

[fallingknife]

Then why won't they let them do exactly that? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-says-just-no-way-to-...

[SpicyLemonZest]

The SEC isn't being coy at all. The current SEC chair has said repeatedly ever since he was appointed that most crypto assets are clearly securities under the existing law, and therefore crypto exchanges must register as securities exchanges. Crypto industry execs would just prefer to be unregulated, and are pretending to be confused about what the SEC wants to trick you into taking their side.

[vkou]

> Crypto industry execs would just prefer to be unregulated, and are pretending to be confused about what the SEC wants to trick you into taking their side.

It's also why they are loudly calling for Congress to weigh in. They know that their business will be nuked from orbit the second the laws on the books will be applied to them, so they are hoping that Congress carves out an exemption for them.

[legitster]

Well, it's not just their business. The SEC is telegraphing that they want to label all cryptocurrencies as securities. Without action from congress the entire technology is practically dead. No one is going to contribute to Ethereum if they have to log into a Schwab account to buy Ether.