I don’t know why this is being taken at face value with so many upvotes. The Gensler SEC was right to go after actual scammers and ponzis, but they went much further and clearly had an agenda.
Gensler targeted the most reputable exchange in the US alleging that their core business is illegal, because the Gensler SEC decided to classify crypto assets as securities rather than define a new regulatory framework that actually fits.
There wasn’t a need to “define a new regulatory framework that actually fits” because, funnily enough, the existing regulatory framework already fits. It turns out, inventing new words doesn’t actually change the fundamental nature of the thing you’re describing. Refusing to call something an “investment” doesn’t change the fact that you’re selling an investment, refusing to call something a “security” doesn’t prevent it from being a security if it meets the definition.
Edit: Sorry, let me address that ridiculous point about Coinbase “asking for clarity” directly. Yes, Coinbase repeatedly “asked for clarity” in the same manner as a dude in a girl’s DMs repeatedly asking for nudes while being told in the bluntest of terms to fuck off. They were given perfectly clear answers, they just didn’t like them, so they kept claiming, with zero fucking basis, that these will laid out rules that every financial institution has been following for decades were somehow “unclear” to them. It was a conversation not unlike a Sovereign Citizen trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that they don’t understand where the officer’s authority comes from. The law is prefectly clear. If you don’t understand the law, you hire a lawyer who does. That’s a cost of doing business. Sticking “smart” in front the of the word “contract” doesn’t suddenly invent a whole new field of law. I can’t suddenly get away with murder because I call it “crypto murder”. The law is based on what you do, not what you call it.
An investment contract exists if there is an “investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others.”
And just to be absolutely clear, many cryptocurrencies do not qualify as investments, and the government agrees. However there are numerous other regulations that the crypto industry apparently cannot handle, such as “Know Your Client” laws, which all financial institutions have to abide by, and which exist to prevent money laundering (Binance’s internal emails revealed that they knew perfectly well that their clients were using their service to facilitate crime, and they were perfectly happy with that).
These are not bad faith regulations. They exist for good reasons, and there is absolute no good reason why the crypto industry shouldn’t also be subject to them. If these are currencies they should be regulated like currencies. If they are investments they should be regulated like investments.
That’s fair, but hardly so aggressive that I’d call it a “crypto crackdown.”
But it’s hardly unexpected to see lawsuits around unsettled law. Everyone should expect more as we start settling case law and bringing crypto inline with existing law.
Also, wasn’t it mostly centered around their non-exchange activities? Press release specifically mentions their “Staking-as-a-Service” offering. Not that I see anything wrong with it, but I could see how that could be considered a security. Doesn’t really pass the Howey test.
I don’t know why this is being taken at face value with so many upvotes. The Gensler SEC was right to go after actual scammers and ponzis, but they went much further and clearly had an agenda.
Gensler targeted the most reputable exchange in the US alleging that their core business is illegal, because the Gensler SEC decided to classify crypto assets as securities rather than define a new regulatory framework that actually fits.
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-102
Coinbase wanted to follow the rules and spent years asking for clarity. Rather than provide clear rules, the SEC provided a lawsuit.
There wasn’t a need to “define a new regulatory framework that actually fits” because, funnily enough, the existing regulatory framework already fits. It turns out, inventing new words doesn’t actually change the fundamental nature of the thing you’re describing. Refusing to call something an “investment” doesn’t change the fact that you’re selling an investment, refusing to call something a “security” doesn’t prevent it from being a security if it meets the definition.
Edit: Sorry, let me address that ridiculous point about Coinbase “asking for clarity” directly. Yes, Coinbase repeatedly “asked for clarity” in the same manner as a dude in a girl’s DMs repeatedly asking for nudes while being told in the bluntest of terms to fuck off. They were given perfectly clear answers, they just didn’t like them, so they kept claiming, with zero fucking basis, that these will laid out rules that every financial institution has been following for decades were somehow “unclear” to them. It was a conversation not unlike a Sovereign Citizen trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that they don’t understand where the officer’s authority comes from. The law is prefectly clear. If you don’t understand the law, you hire a lawyer who does. That’s a cost of doing business. Sticking “smart” in front the of the word “contract” doesn’t suddenly invent a whole new field of law. I can’t suddenly get away with murder because I call it “crypto murder”. The law is based on what you do, not what you call it.
wouldn’t a security/investment require a fundamental book value?
No
And just to be absolutely clear, many cryptocurrencies do not qualify as investments, and the government agrees. However there are numerous other regulations that the crypto industry apparently cannot handle, such as “Know Your Client” laws, which all financial institutions have to abide by, and which exist to prevent money laundering (Binance’s internal emails revealed that they knew perfectly well that their clients were using their service to facilitate crime, and they were perfectly happy with that).
These are not bad faith regulations. They exist for good reasons, and there is absolute no good reason why the crypto industry shouldn’t also be subject to them. If these are currencies they should be regulated like currencies. If they are investments they should be regulated like investments.
That’s fair, but hardly so aggressive that I’d call it a “crypto crackdown.”
But it’s hardly unexpected to see lawsuits around unsettled law. Everyone should expect more as we start settling case law and bringing crypto inline with existing law.
Also, wasn’t it mostly centered around their non-exchange activities? Press release specifically mentions their “Staking-as-a-Service” offering. Not that I see anything wrong with it, but I could see how that could be considered a security. Doesn’t really pass the Howey test.