12 ms·

I actually agree with Armstrong here - the SEC has had plenty of time to assess the market for crypto products and offer clear rules...it almost feels like the

I actually agree with Armstrong here - the SEC has had plenty of time to assess the market for crypto products and offer clear rules...it almost feels like the indecisiveness is an intentional policy used to cow the industry.

arcticbull 3y ago
That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that everyone who went to the SEC and asked them if they could do something was told absolutely not. The people who didn't ask seemed to be getting away with it. So everyone stopped asking. However that didn't change the facts of the situation. At some point even the mightiest ostrich must get rekt.
- jedberg 3y ago
  Coinbase has asked them many times though. The article even mentions this. They met 30 times to seek clarity on the rules.
  - femiagbabiaka 3y ago
    Armstrong says they did, and says they met to discuss things like this. We will see what happened in reality during the course of the court case. I don't think it is wise to trust the words of any crypto actors.
    - wslh 3y ago
      I don't agree with you. There are many actors in the crypto ecosystem and sadly the scammers and bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. Personally I was involved in helping representatives in writing laws to move forward. If there is no guidance you can build an organization that could be destroyed arbitrarily in one day. SEC had enough time... I don't want to exaggerate but it seems like the financial establishment is really worried, and not precisely about money laundering and corruption. Those use everything as a tool, it does not matter if it is crypto or your "5 star" bank.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. So much better that I take it purely on faith that there are decent people in that space. I have to take it on faith, because I haven't actually seen or heard from any of them and so have no evidence that they exist.
        wslh 3y ago
        I consider others and my company, good actors in the space: think about the space critically and giving transparent feedback and scenarios between the skepticism and the utopia.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        And you may well be -- but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing. The space is generally so tainted that it's not unreasonable to assume the people in it aren't exactly good until proven otherwise.
        wslh 3y ago
        Logically speaking you are saying that there is no exist good people in the space. That is a really difficult assertion to probe. I am saying something simpler: there exist good people in the space. Then, you are saying "but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing.". Well, that is not my job, do your work if you want to change your mind. If you need help I can present you to good people but I assume you can do it by yourself. Also, again logically, saying that there is no good people in the space, we should first define good people in general. Not trying to sound pedantic but trying to show you that your assertion is about a lot of people, probably in the order or millions.
        stonogo 3y ago
        > do your work if you want to change your mind The point is that scammers are so prevalent it's not worth "doing your work." The ROI on vetting every player in a given transaction just isn't high enough to make it worth engaging. We don't have to do all this shit in the actual financial industry because of regulation and insurance. Nobody's presented a compelling reason to re-evolve those protections because blockchain. And yes, the assertion is about a lot of people. That's why we put locks on our cars and houses instead of vetting everyone in town. You keep arguing about symptoms without addressing causes.
  - elliekelly 3y ago
    The SEC doesn’t give out legal advice.
    - rekttrader 3y ago
      Exactly, there here to step in when things go bad. This is regulatory overreach.
    - true_religion 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
        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.
  - Alex3917 3y ago
    This reminds me a lot of a different Armstrong repeatedly saying that he couldn’t be doping because he was the most drug-tested athlete in history. In reality, the law is perfectly clear and hasn’t changed in decades, so what would giving clarity even mean?
    - mfer 3y ago
      Clarity can include explaining how some laws apply in situations relevant to Coinbase or crypto currencies. Sometimes dots need to be connected.
    - latchkey 3y ago
      If the law is perfectly clear, is ETH a security or a commodity? Gensler can't even answer that question. https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003 https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003
- rekttrader 3y ago
  The sec is not a supervisory agency, they’re a regulator meaning they step in after the fact for investor protections. The sec had plenty of open sessions where folks in the industry would ask for guidance and yet it was not gotten because they don’t tell the capital or crypto markets what should be in the markets they’re here to pull down the things that shouldn’t be. The sec allows “junk bonds” if you disclose the risk, the credit default swap maybe shouldn’t exist but it does... and is one of the most heavily traded securities. Heck, you can buy VIX for CDS... let’s think about that for a second... that’s a mortgage, packed into a portfolio, that has a derivative, and that derivative’s volatility is tradeable. That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does. The difference is that most volume in crypto is fake, and the price is controlled by a small cartel of exchange owners and an $82B Bahamian counterfeiting operation whose 'bank' is run by the creator of Inspector Gadget. That's the risk that's not disclosed.
    - robopsychology 3y ago
      If the price is controlled why does it drop so much?
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        If you're the house, then you profit when you know where it's going. The bigger the move, the more profit you can make.
      - piva00 3y ago
        Those in the cartel need exit liquidity sometimes. It's manipulated, not 100% controlled.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Securities are legal and Coinbase is a licensed broker dealer which means they are allowed to sell securities if they are registered with the SEC. The SEC is saying that crypto is a security while simultaneously not allowing them to be registered as a security. So they are treating it like a security from an enforcement perspective, but not from a regulatory perspective. They can't have it both ways. It must either be a security, in which case the SEC can regulate it, and it can be legally sold by brokers, or it is not a security, in which case the SEC can fuck off because it isn't in their jurisdiction. They are trying to have it both ways, and that is clearly acting in bad faith.
  - dgellow 3y ago
    So, you’re saying that Coinbase knowingly offered unregistered security. And acknowledged that’s not legal. The fact the SEC refuses these securities to be registered doesn’t negate the illegal offering of unregistered securities.
    - daedalus_f 3y ago
      If you look at the recent SEC filing, they present evidence Coinbase likely knew what they were doing was illegal and coached companies wanting to list coins on the exchange on how to remove “problematic language” from their promotional material that might make it too obvious they were selling unregistered securities.
      - dgellow 3y ago
        Yeah, I cannot really see how they can defend their position here. That will be an interesting case to follow, Coinbase legal team will have to be _creative_.
      - dlubarov 3y ago
        Where is this filing? Not sure what that would be since the SEC hasn't brought charges yet. I don't see an issue with advising companies on what language to use, given that language can absolutely affect whether a token is in fact a security, e.g. based on the "expectation of profit" prong of the Howey test.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
snacktaster 3y ago
The slowness and deliberateness of USA regulators to respond is what has enabled the worldwide crypto economy to flourish in the first place. You think they should have just banned it CCP-style? This is more akin to "You can have your fun but don't go crazy. But as soon as we start seeing your investors getting scammed we're going to step in."
dogleash 3y ago
Complaining about regulation 101 is that rules are "unjustified" if the regulator has foresight, or "inconsistent" if they're reactive.
thesausageking 3y ago
It's "regulation-by-enforcement". Instead of defining clear rules, the SEC just waits and brings actions against the activities it doesn't want to happen. Sen Toomey and others have called out Gensler for doing this: https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-secs-regulation-by-enforcement-approach-harmed-consumers https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-secs...
- chii 3y ago
  The problem is that you can't know what isn't good until you see evidence of bad coming out - then you rule that it shouldn't be allowed. This is how a lot of safety regulation comes about - from a disaster or a problem that previously nobody knew or understood. The SEC is likely operating under this sort of outlook.
  - thesausageking 3y ago
    That was a reasonable argument to make in 2013 or 2017. But Gensler's administration alone has issued more than 1,500 actions. At this point, the SEC should be able to codify their interpretations and publish guidance. One example: a decade after the white paper was published, the SEC still won't say if Ethereum is a security or not. Gensler was literally asked this in front of congress and refused to answer: https://twitter.com/MatthewHyland_/status/1648334487145656325 https://twitter.com/MatthewHyland_/status/164833448714565632... This is a project that's 10 years old, has a $250B market cap, and has had tens of thousands of other projects built on it. There's no excuse for the SEC to not have a position on it.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    The SEC has no power to decide that crypto shouldn't be allowed. That would require legislation from congress. Legislation that is not forthcoming. The SEC is currently doing an end run around this fact by saying that it is a security (which is explicitly legal) but that it can't be registered (which effectively means nobody can sell it). It is a naked power grab by an unelected bureaucracy.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
lallysingh 3y ago
I don't think the SEC can do much here, honestly. It's like asking a cop "is this illegal?" For stuff like murder they can say yes. For complicated issues like picking up your kid on Feb 29 when your ex complains about custody agreements only defined for non-leap-years, "we'll arrest and charge you for it, but there's a 50% shot it gets thrown out of court." There's enough wiggle room between what each crypto product does and the original intent of the law, that this is really asking for a court case to resolve the matter. Hopefully with something clearer than "Apply Howey to this." The court may end up saying "purely mined currencies aren't securities as long as they don't have X capabilities, ICOs are securities, etc."[0] Which would be very helpful. [0] I have no idea what they'd actually say, or if the example is reasonable.
traveler01 3y ago
Dangerous to side with crypto stuff on Hackernews...
- latchkey 3y ago
  No, it isn't. I side with crypto all the time and I see plenty of other people do it too. I also see the same loud voices, with a lot of karma, repeat their tropes over and over again. If people believe that it is "dangerous", that is a sad way to control a narrative. Here we are 10+ years later and crypto hasn't gone to zero. If anything, it is discussed more than ever. What HN requires is sane responses about crypto, and this is one of them.
  - traveler01 3y ago
    My past experiences with saying anything positive about crypto has being: - Being downvoted to hell - Comments attacking crypto disrergading completely my opinion
    - latchkey 3y ago
      You get enough karma, a few downvotes always happens and it doesn't hurt as bad. I have people who follow me around downvoting me. Who cares. =) ProTip: HN isn't looking for personal opinion on crypto. I'm not either for that matter, in either direction. That's why it is easy to rebuke the haters. They are so engrossed with their hate that they can't see that what they are saying is just repeated and boring trope. Easy to score karma against that.
vkou 3y ago
They have clear rules, it's not clear to me why Coinbase does not think that those rules apply to them.
rchaud 3y ago
Perhaps you're just taking Coinbase at their word? SEC's assessment appears to be that a business like Coinbase should register as a securities exchange. In 2021, SEC served Coinbase a Wells Notice over that their "Lend" product (yield in USDC) was likely in violation of established case law, US v Howey and Reves v Ernst and Young. Coinbase discloses this on their own blog, under the hilarious title "The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why"[0] [0]https://www.coinbase.com/blog/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-sue-us-over-lend-we-have-no-idea-why https://www.coinbase.com/blog/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-t...
legitster 3y ago
They don't want to reveal that they are treating all crypto assets as securities. So they are starting with the cases that are easiest for them to win, and building case precedent for them to go after bigger cases. With the case they are giving there is no reason they don't eventually go after Bitcoin or Ether.
BLanen 3y ago
> We need regulation > Ok, you're a securities exchange and have to act like one > NOT LIKE THAT

arcticbull 3y ago

That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that everyone who went to the SEC and asked them if they could do something was told absolutely not. The people who didn't ask seemed to be getting away with it. So everyone stopped asking. However that didn't change the facts of the situation. At some point even the mightiest ostrich must get rekt.

jedberg 3y ago
Coinbase has asked them many times though. The article even mentions this. They met 30 times to seek clarity on the rules.
- femiagbabiaka 3y ago
  Armstrong says they did, and says they met to discuss things like this. We will see what happened in reality during the course of the court case. I don't think it is wise to trust the words of any crypto actors.
  - wslh 3y ago
    I don't agree with you. There are many actors in the crypto ecosystem and sadly the scammers and bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. Personally I was involved in helping representatives in writing laws to move forward. If there is no guidance you can build an organization that could be destroyed arbitrarily in one day. SEC had enough time... I don't want to exaggerate but it seems like the financial establishment is really worried, and not precisely about money laundering and corruption. Those use everything as a tool, it does not matter if it is crypto or your "5 star" bank.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. So much better that I take it purely on faith that there are decent people in that space. I have to take it on faith, because I haven't actually seen or heard from any of them and so have no evidence that they exist.
      - wslh 3y ago
        I consider others and my company, good actors in the space: think about the space critically and giving transparent feedback and scenarios between the skepticism and the utopia.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        And you may well be -- but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing. The space is generally so tainted that it's not unreasonable to assume the people in it aren't exactly good until proven otherwise.
        wslh 3y ago
        Logically speaking you are saying that there is no exist good people in the space. That is a really difficult assertion to probe. I am saying something simpler: there exist good people in the space. Then, you are saying "but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing.". Well, that is not my job, do your work if you want to change your mind. If you need help I can present you to good people but I assume you can do it by yourself. Also, again logically, saying that there is no good people in the space, we should first define good people in general. Not trying to sound pedantic but trying to show you that your assertion is about a lot of people, probably in the order or millions.
        stonogo 3y ago
        > do your work if you want to change your mind The point is that scammers are so prevalent it's not worth "doing your work." The ROI on vetting every player in a given transaction just isn't high enough to make it worth engaging. We don't have to do all this shit in the actual financial industry because of regulation and insurance. Nobody's presented a compelling reason to re-evolve those protections because blockchain. And yes, the assertion is about a lot of people. That's why we put locks on our cars and houses instead of vetting everyone in town. You keep arguing about symptoms without addressing causes.
- elliekelly 3y ago
  The SEC doesn’t give out legal advice.
  - rekttrader 3y ago
    Exactly, there here to step in when things go bad. This is regulatory overreach.
  - true_religion 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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.
- Alex3917 3y ago
  This reminds me a lot of a different Armstrong repeatedly saying that he couldn’t be doping because he was the most drug-tested athlete in history. In reality, the law is perfectly clear and hasn’t changed in decades, so what would giving clarity even mean?
  - mfer 3y ago
    Clarity can include explaining how some laws apply in situations relevant to Coinbase or crypto currencies. Sometimes dots need to be connected.
  - latchkey 3y ago
    If the law is perfectly clear, is ETH a security or a commodity? Gensler can't even answer that question. https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003 https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003
rekttrader 3y ago
The sec is not a supervisory agency, they’re a regulator meaning they step in after the fact for investor protections. The sec had plenty of open sessions where folks in the industry would ask for guidance and yet it was not gotten because they don’t tell the capital or crypto markets what should be in the markets they’re here to pull down the things that shouldn’t be. The sec allows “junk bonds” if you disclose the risk, the credit default swap maybe shouldn’t exist but it does... and is one of the most heavily traded securities. Heck, you can buy VIX for CDS... let’s think about that for a second... that’s a mortgage, packed into a portfolio, that has a derivative, and that derivative’s volatility is tradeable. That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does.
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does. The difference is that most volume in crypto is fake, and the price is controlled by a small cartel of exchange owners and an $82B Bahamian counterfeiting operation whose 'bank' is run by the creator of Inspector Gadget. That's the risk that's not disclosed.
  - robopsychology 3y ago
    If the price is controlled why does it drop so much?
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      If you're the house, then you profit when you know where it's going. The bigger the move, the more profit you can make.
    - piva00 3y ago
      Those in the cartel need exit liquidity sometimes. It's manipulated, not 100% controlled.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
fallingknife 3y ago
Securities are legal and Coinbase is a licensed broker dealer which means they are allowed to sell securities if they are registered with the SEC. The SEC is saying that crypto is a security while simultaneously not allowing them to be registered as a security. So they are treating it like a security from an enforcement perspective, but not from a regulatory perspective. They can't have it both ways. It must either be a security, in which case the SEC can regulate it, and it can be legally sold by brokers, or it is not a security, in which case the SEC can fuck off because it isn't in their jurisdiction. They are trying to have it both ways, and that is clearly acting in bad faith.
- dgellow 3y ago
  So, you’re saying that Coinbase knowingly offered unregistered security. And acknowledged that’s not legal. The fact the SEC refuses these securities to be registered doesn’t negate the illegal offering of unregistered securities.
  - daedalus_f 3y ago
    If you look at the recent SEC filing, they present evidence Coinbase likely knew what they were doing was illegal and coached companies wanting to list coins on the exchange on how to remove “problematic language” from their promotional material that might make it too obvious they were selling unregistered securities.
    - dgellow 3y ago
      Yeah, I cannot really see how they can defend their position here. That will be an interesting case to follow, Coinbase legal team will have to be _creative_.
    - dlubarov 3y ago
      Where is this filing? Not sure what that would be since the SEC hasn't brought charges yet. I don't see an issue with advising companies on what language to use, given that language can absolutely affect whether a token is in fact a security, e.g. based on the "expectation of profit" prong of the Howey test.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

snacktaster 3y ago

The slowness and deliberateness of USA regulators to respond is what has enabled the worldwide crypto economy to flourish in the first place. You think they should have just banned it CCP-style? This is more akin to "You can have your fun but don't go crazy. But as soon as we start seeing your investors getting scammed we're going to step in."

dogleash 3y ago

Complaining about regulation 101 is that rules are "unjustified" if the regulator has foresight, or "inconsistent" if they're reactive.

thesausageking 3y ago

It's "regulation-by-enforcement". Instead of defining clear rules, the SEC just waits and brings actions against the activities it doesn't want to happen. Sen Toomey and others have called out Gensler for doing this: https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-secs-regulation-by-enforcement-approach-harmed-consumers https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-secs...

chii 3y ago
The problem is that you can't know what isn't good until you see evidence of bad coming out - then you rule that it shouldn't be allowed. This is how a lot of safety regulation comes about - from a disaster or a problem that previously nobody knew or understood. The SEC is likely operating under this sort of outlook.
- thesausageking 3y ago
  That was a reasonable argument to make in 2013 or 2017. But Gensler's administration alone has issued more than 1,500 actions. At this point, the SEC should be able to codify their interpretations and publish guidance. One example: a decade after the white paper was published, the SEC still won't say if Ethereum is a security or not. Gensler was literally asked this in front of congress and refused to answer: https://twitter.com/MatthewHyland_/status/1648334487145656325 https://twitter.com/MatthewHyland_/status/164833448714565632... This is a project that's 10 years old, has a $250B market cap, and has had tens of thousands of other projects built on it. There's no excuse for the SEC to not have a position on it.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  The SEC has no power to decide that crypto shouldn't be allowed. That would require legislation from congress. Legislation that is not forthcoming. The SEC is currently doing an end run around this fact by saying that it is a security (which is explicitly legal) but that it can't be registered (which effectively means nobody can sell it). It is a naked power grab by an unelected bureaucracy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

lallysingh 3y ago

I don't think the SEC can do much here, honestly. It's like asking a cop "is this illegal?" For stuff like murder they can say yes. For complicated issues like picking up your kid on Feb 29 when your ex complains about custody agreements only defined for non-leap-years, "we'll arrest and charge you for it, but there's a 50% shot it gets thrown out of court." There's enough wiggle room between what each crypto product does and the original intent of the law, that this is really asking for a court case to resolve the matter. Hopefully with something clearer than "Apply Howey to this." The court may end up saying "purely mined currencies aren't securities as long as they don't have X capabilities, ICOs are securities, etc."[0] Which would be very helpful. [0] I have no idea what they'd actually say, or if the example is reasonable.

traveler01 3y ago

Dangerous to side with crypto stuff on Hackernews...

latchkey 3y ago
No, it isn't. I side with crypto all the time and I see plenty of other people do it too. I also see the same loud voices, with a lot of karma, repeat their tropes over and over again. If people believe that it is "dangerous", that is a sad way to control a narrative. Here we are 10+ years later and crypto hasn't gone to zero. If anything, it is discussed more than ever. What HN requires is sane responses about crypto, and this is one of them.
- traveler01 3y ago
  My past experiences with saying anything positive about crypto has being: - Being downvoted to hell - Comments attacking crypto disrergading completely my opinion
  - latchkey 3y ago
    You get enough karma, a few downvotes always happens and it doesn't hurt as bad. I have people who follow me around downvoting me. Who cares. =) ProTip: HN isn't looking for personal opinion on crypto. I'm not either for that matter, in either direction. That's why it is easy to rebuke the haters. They are so engrossed with their hate that they can't see that what they are saying is just repeated and boring trope. Easy to score karma against that.

vkou 3y ago

They have clear rules, it's not clear to me why Coinbase does not think that those rules apply to them.

rchaud 3y ago

Perhaps you're just taking Coinbase at their word? SEC's assessment appears to be that a business like Coinbase should register as a securities exchange. In 2021, SEC served Coinbase a Wells Notice over that their "Lend" product (yield in USDC) was likely in violation of established case law, US v Howey and Reves v Ernst and Young. Coinbase discloses this on their own blog, under the hilarious title "The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why"[0] [0]https://www.coinbase.com/blog/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-to-sue-us-over-lend-we-have-no-idea-why https://www.coinbase.com/blog/the-sec-has-told-us-it-wants-t...

legitster 3y ago

They don't want to reveal that they are treating all crypto assets as securities. So they are starting with the cases that are easiest for them to win, and building case precedent for them to go after bigger cases. With the case they are giving there is no reason they don't eventually go after Bitcoin or Ether.

BLanen 3y ago

> We need regulation > Ok, you're a securities exchange and have to act like one > NOT LIKE THAT