[tolmasky]

Just because we decided it that way arbitrarily, right? It's not some natural law that this is how it should be, that the rule makers can't possibly explain rules, only enforce them. I mean, you could make the same argument about the IRS and Congress with respect to taxes: it's not their job to make it easy on us, just to punish us when we make a mistake on our tax returns. I mean, I guess... But just because we wrote the law that way. Plenty of other places have put 2 and 2 together and figured out that if the goal is to collect taxes and not to enrich TurboTax, then they can make the process dramatically simpler.

Similarly, if your actual goal is to reduce the occurrences of "bad behaviors" (which is presumably the whole point of creating these rules to begin with), then it doesn't seem that unreasonable to have someone try to lay it out clearly, right? If for no other reason than maybe a bunch of people negatively affected by these behaviors would have been spared since there wouldn't have been this grey area to operate in for so long? That's who we're ultimately doing this for, right? The public that is hurt by securities that are misrepresented? Now, if your goal is to punish people, then yes, the current system makes more sense.

[billythemaniam]

In an ideal world, regulatory agencies would also spend significant resources on education. Unfortunately many of them don't have enough resources for rule making and enforcement, their primary mandate. However, there are plenty of educational resources outside the agencies. There are lawyers, accountants, professors, consultants, etc who are experts that you can hire. There are classes available, in some cases entire degrees.

The regulations are designed to protected the general public from companies doing the wrong thing in the name of profit even when the intentions of the people running those companies are good. It's a check on the dark side of capitalism. Are sometimes those rules too complicated or too overbearing? Yes! Are there also people out there just to improve that? Yes, and some of them work in the regulatory agencies!

It's a messy, frustrating process that on the whole seems to be doing a decent job. Most people in US have access to clean water, generally don't have to worry about tainted Advil, or worry their life savings are going to evaporate by just storing it in a bank.

I don't know enough about the specifics of the Coinbase suit yet, but the crypto industry in general seems an awful like the banking industry of the 1800s and early 1900s in the US. During that time there were plenty of companies and people doing the right thing, but there were enough bad actors that something needed to be done. The SEC was born.

This is very likely fallout from FTX, but not because of some nefarious plot against crypto but rather the SEC realized there is a financial sector they need to focus on more closely. A SEC lawsuit is also a starting point for a serious discussion, not a criminal indictment. If the SEC believes there has been criminal behavior, they refer that to the DoJ. The likely outcome if Coinbase has been trying to do the right thing is some sort of settlement (fine) + direction on what to do differently. Then Coinbase will continue on like normal with whatever changes the SEC wanted.

[hef19898]

There are, regardless of regulation, from aerspace over drugs to finance, tonsbof law firms, counsultants and experts out there explaining the rules and how to follow them.

The problem is that a whole generation of wannabe start-up bros, starting with Uber the latest, just cannot be bother with learning and respecting rules it seems. Most of those flog to crypto lately.

[tolmasky]

Not that I have a ton of experience on this, but from what I've seen, lawyers do not generally have a unified opinion on stuff like this (stuff that has never been litigated on in general). A lot of them will tell you "this is what I think, but look, this is untested."

To separate this from the emotionally-charged subject for a second: just look at Google vs. Oracle. It took over a decade to decide whether APIs are covered by copyright or not. And the reality is that that was closer to a coin toss than any of us would like to admit, since it was trying to apply a law that in no way imagined something like APIs to APIs, and relied heavily on the judge/etc being able to wrap their heads around it. The verdict could have easily gone the other way. When it comes to how regulations apply to new technologies, the uncomfortable truth is that there is no "objective truth" to the law, and unfortunately comes down more to how much money the parties throw at the problem and legal process. I am sure on the Oracle side there were plenty of people talking just like you: "these people don't respect copyright and flagrantly copy APIs that are obviously protected IP and they think just because they're in hippy open source land the law doesn't apply to them". The reality is that until the verdict, there effectively was no rule around copyright and APIs.

For an opposite example: look at the famous case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980). The patent agency rejected an application for a genetically engineered bacteria that could break down oil, saying you can't patent living organisms. It went to the Supreme Court, that decided 5-4 that they could. Are you going to sit here and tell me this was obvious from the beginning? Given that the patent agency had the opposite opinion than the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court was basically split 50/50 on the decision? Do we think they made the right decision given no background in biology? Do we think Chakrabarty was a wannabe biology bro that didn't care about the law, given that almost every lawyer at the time would have told you was commonly accepted did not allow patenting living organisms?

* > tonsbof law firms, counsultants and experts out there explaining the rules and how to follow them.*

Hopefully you see now that a ton of those law firms are out there telling you "I think we can win on this, it has happened many times before, and the reality is that law really isn't written until we make our case".

[hef19898]

If your compliance plan is based on "my lawyer told me will win this", you are already 90% screwed.

[tolmasky]

If that's what you took away from this, you must have not read it. I have given specific examples from case law that show that the law often just isn't defined in these new areas, and there is actually nothing better than "I think we can win this". The law is not a secret ledger that has the true rules that account for all future scenarios, that you try to guess from the outside, and can get right or wrong. The law often just comes down to making your case. I know that's not satisfying, but it is the way it is.

[krageon]

Coinbase hired those people though, and they didn't get anywhere.