SEC to Coinbase: Nice Crypto Exchange You Got There, It'd Be a Shame if Something Happened to It
Coinbase says the agency's assault will "only drive innovation, jobs, and the entire industry overseas."

Coinbase, which is by trade volume the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United States, announced yesterday it had been hit by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with a threat of looming legal action.
As a public Form 8-K filed by Coinbase with the SEC explained, "On March 22, 2023, Coinbase…received a 'Wells Notice' from the Staff…of the Securities and Exchange Commission….stating that the Staff has advised the Company that it made a 'preliminary determination' to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of the federal securities laws."
In that 8-K filing, which is required to inform the public about important events that might affect shareholders, Coinbase explained that, based on what SEC staff have communicated to them, "these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Company's spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, Coinbase Prime and Coinbase Wallet. The potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties." (The news is indeed affecting stockholders, with Coinbase's stock down roughly 13 percent today as of this article's publication.)
Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal went public with a lot of the frustration that has hit market participants in crypto (and even federal bankruptcy judges) as they try to navigate the SEC's approach to virtual currencies. Grewal explained how the SEC under chair Gary Gensler has been reshaping regulatory law and policy via enforcement (and the occasional vague public threat).
Grewal echoed the complaints many have had while trying to understand exactly why and when the SEC believes that a cryptocurrency is a security and able to be regulated as such, and thus that companies facilitating trading in them face certain registration requirements. "We asked the SEC specifically to identify which assets on our platforms they believe may be securities, and they declined to do so," Grewal wrote.
"We continue to think rulemaking and legislation are better tools for defining the law for our industry than enforcement actions," Grewal went on to say. He again echoed a long-term frustration with the SEC's apparent desire to reveal what it believes the law requires not through rigorous understandable written notice—something more like actual law or rule making—but by just bashing certain crypto market players against the wall, seemingly at random.
Grewal defended Coinbase's efforts in trying to understand the law and follow it. In the course of the investigation that led to this week's notice, "the SEC asked us if we would be interested in discussing a potential resolution that would include registering some portion of our business with the SEC. We said absolutely yes. Specifically, the SEC asked us to provide our views on what a registration path for Coinbase could look like – because there is no existing way for a crypto exchange to register."
Grewal said that after trying to get the SEC to give feedback on various registration models that Coinbase proposed, the agency generally stonewalled, was unresponsive, and eventually in January just "told us they would be shifting back to an enforcement investigation." Coinbase insisted "our staking and exchange services are largely unchanged since 2021, when the SEC reviewed our S-1 and allowed us to become a public company," he wrote. "Our core business model remains the same."
Grewal noted that different federal agencies have given conflicting reports on the way to legally categorize certain virtual currencies: "The Chair of the CFTC [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] recently testified to Congress that Ethereum is a commodity, which the public has long understood to be the case. Then-CFTC Commissioner Quintenz has said that 'the SEC has no authority over pure commodities or their trading venues, whether those commodities are wheat, gold, oil…or crypto assets.' Current SEC Chair recently opined that perhaps BTC [bitcoin] is the only digital asset commodity, which is entirely at odds with the position of the CFTC."
"If our regulators cannot agree on who regulates which aspects of crypto, the industry has no fair notice on how to proceed," Grewal concluded. "Against this backdrop, it makes no sense to threaten enforcement actions against trusted public companies like Coinbase who are committed to playing by the rules."
Whether or not a financial instrument, agreement, or coin in the virtual currency space constitutes a "security" under the reigning "Howey test," based on the 1946 Supreme Court case SEC v. W.J. Howey Co, continues to be a matter that courts seem to have to sort out on a case-by-case basis. While complex, as most legal definitional principles are, a central element of Howey is that the buyer and seller of the product are involved in a common enterprise involving a monetary investment in which reasonable expectation of profit is derived from the effort of others. Most argue that most virtual currencies are more like commodities whose values fluctuate based on mass market demand, not based on any effort of the original issuer. As Coin Center Director of Research Peter Van Valkenburgh explained in an interesting article assessing whether ether (the second-highest-market-cap virtual currency) should be legally categorized as a security, there is a meaningful distinction between a virtual object that may at some time have been part of some arrangement or offer that might be reasonably seen as a security and a virtual object that is in and of itself always a security.
Grewal insisted that nothing on his exchange should qualify as a security, including the staking services that he said the SEC has been familiar with since 2019. "Until this investigation, we had heard no concerns at all from the SEC about" them, he explained.
Grewal believes, as do many in the crypto space who have been watching with dismay as the SEC's wrecking ball swings unpredictably, that SEC actions like this "will only drive innovation, jobs, and the entire industry overseas."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
According to Reason, the government holding a gun to the head of a private business is not coercion unless they actually pull the trigger.
I have just received my 3rd payment order and $30,000 that I have built up on my laptop in a month through an online agent. This job is good and his regular salary is much better than my normal job.” Work now and start making money online yourself.
Go here……>>>>> http://Www.Smartjob1.com
Where exactly do you see that position stated or implied in this article?
You must be new here.
I'm very much not, and I'd ask the same question. Are you reading some Bizarro World version of Reason that I don't have access to? Because the point of the article I just read was that it was indeed a bad thing for regulators to be threatening private businesses, especially when they refuse to tell those businesses just what the rules are. Their rules might be just and reasonable (Stranger things have happened, even if not many.) or they might not, but until we have some idea just what those rules are, there's no way to judge.
"stating that the Staff has advised the Company that it made a 'preliminary determination' to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of the federal securities laws."
Oh, they are just advising the company. That's not a problem, right writers at Reason? Nothing to see here.
Pretty sure that's exactly the opposite of the point of the article I just read.
The question, though, is what overseas jurisdiction will be any less arbitrary and capricious.
Good- fuck all the crypto assholes.
The only reason to be afraid of it is it interfering with ACTUAL currency, like how it did with SVB. Let them move overseas and shill their shitcoins to a bunch of suckers who will be hacked and left holding the bag one way or another.
Anyone with half a brain realizes that the current implementation of cryptocurrency is not at all a currency and is a ruse to get the marks to give up actual money for worthless bytes.
Not exactly sure how crypto interferes other than to perhaps offer folks a means of holding some of their assets in something that's not (explicitly) valued in dollars and potentially less subject to manipulation by Treasury or Fed. This is another example of bureaucrats being used as surrogates to coerce and intimidate in the absence of clear statute. They don't actually want clarity because it would require them to comply with a stated set of rules as opposed to fluid standards that can be altered on a whim to force desired behavior. Pretty much the standard way of doing business by government now. Keep things ambiguous so that you can claim plausible deniability, and/or let things languish in the courts. That way you can always blame someone else. Chicken feces. BTW, if you don't like crypto, simply turn and walk away. It's not your problem. If the 'marks' get burned, it's on them.
This article is so off the mark it makes my head hurt. By existing definitions, Bitcoin is a commodity, and all the $hitcoins are securities. There is no doubt here - any plain English reading of the definition of security makes it clear that all the crypto tokens are securities. The reason there have been huge collapses is that the SEC has refused to make the obvious ruling yet, allowing all kinds of scammers to enter an unregulated field and fleece the marks.
Remember FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried? All that money he donated to politicians was to get the industry regulared by the CFTC and NOT the SEC. When a scammer wants to be regulated by one group, you know he's got them in his pocket.
Bitcoin is for real. All the rest are ponzi schemes. Only Bitcoin has no insiders manipulating the product.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information…………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The Biden administration is desperate to kill all alternatives to the banking system.