Live data from Hacker News

“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

newsletter.mollywhite.net

111–120 of 557 posts

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#111
post #54
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that Gensler was obfuscating intentionally when asked about cryptocurrency. Modern regulators seem to prefer retrospective punishment over prospective advice and regulation.

It seems like a massive regulatory failure to let Coinbase IPO if there are the sort of glaring issues they claim. Coinbase has a market cap of around $10 billion, and is owned by retail investors as part of standard index funds. If it goes to zero tomorrow because of the SEC, that is billions of dollars in losses that could have been avoided by more responsible regulatory behavior. Meanwhile insiders will have cashe…

> It seems like a massive regulatory failure to let Coinbase IPO if there are the sort of glaring issues they claim

Did you read the article? Specifically the part where it explains why the SEC does not evaluate the business models of companies?

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that issuers of crypto don't file S-1's and the like. They apparently claim it's because the investment involved in crypto is technology-enforced scarcity and not any interest in an actual business. They might propose instead publishing a white paper about how their technology works. Since there's no satisfactory registration, there's no legitimate industry. The Coinbase situation is a follow-on conseq…

Which, when you think about it makes sense. Why would consumer protection folks waive consumer protections simply because the would-be issuer confirmed there was no intrinsic value in the offering?

Some people have suggested that coins with no utility or claim on future revenue should be regulated as gambling.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gensler's SEC has also been intentionally obtuse about how those securities laws should apply to cryptocurrency. No. Coinbase’s complaint is that the SEC has been clear, but that they don’t like the clear answer. https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/5NRidtW8lvwVEfSHpn... > Rather than initiate new rulemaking, Chair Gensler has repeatedly stated through speeches and testimony that the vast majority of digital t…

A congressman asked gensler face to face if ethereum is a security and gensler declined to answer. So no, the SEC has not been clear.

For what definition of Ethereum? The one with staking?

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you stopped reading right before you got to the part of the article that really highlights the central lie of Coinbase: > Coinbase, as with most crypto platforms, has decided it wants to simultaneously operate as an exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency. These three functions — bringing together securities orders for buyers and sellers, trading securities on behalf of others, and intermediating trades — a…

> are typically required to be separate due to conflicts of interest that emerge when one entity controls all of them. This doesn't appear to be what the SEC is suing Coinbase for though, and is actually far more applicable to the question "then why were they allowed to go public?" It's possible (likely even) there are nuances I don't grok, but sued for selling unregistred securities is not the same as requiring stru…

SEC filing by Coinbase as a free writing prospectus related to their S1 - https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/334fdd0...

QUESTION 17: “Coinbase plays the role of both broker, executing trades on behalf of clients, as well as an exchange, matching buyers and sellers. This is a unique situation. In other markets, i.e. equities, a broker would be required to be legally independent of an exchange. Could you talk about how Coinbase operates as both a broker and an exchange? It seems like there are some conflicts of interest in the current situation." -- TidewaterVirginia

Alesia: All right. Question 17. "Coinbase plays the role of both broker, executing trades on behalf of clients, as well as an exchange, matching buyers and sellers. This is a unique situation. In other markets, i.e. equities, a broker would be required to be legally independent of an exchange. Could you talk about how Coinbase operates as both a broker and an exchange? It seems like there are some conflicts of interest in the current situation." This is from TidewaterVirginia. Thank you so much for this question.

Alesia: So it's true. On our retail side, we operate a full broker that includes the retail brokerage piece, as well as custody embedded in that retail trading experience. On the institutional side, we operate an exchange, a broker, and then a custodian. What I think is important about the Coinbase business model is that we have set up our business such that there's not a conflict. We do not proprietarily trade against our clients. What this means is that we're only executing orders on our customer's behalf and seeking for the best execution on those customer's’ orders.

Alesia: So when an institutional customer engages with our broker, for example, we're routing that order across multiple liquidity venues; many trades on our own exchange, but oftentimes it trades outside of Coinbase as well, wherever the best price may be for that customer. In doing this, it is an agents-only model. There's no conflict of interest for us operating both the exchange and the broker, because we are ensuring that we're acting in our client's best interest at every point in the transaction.

---

The issue isn't so much that they're doing this, but what the corresponding implications of it when related to unregistered securities.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr2023-1...

> The Coinbase Platform merges three functions that are typically separated in traditional securities markets—those of brokers, exchanges, and clearing agencies. Yet, Coinbase has never registered with the SEC as a broker, national securities exchange, or clearing agency, thus evading the disclosure regime that Congress has established for our securities markets. All the while, Coinbase has earned billions of dollars in revenues by, among other things, collecting transaction fees from investors whom Coinbase has deprived of the disclosures and protections that registration entails and thus exposed to significant risk.

It's that they are unregistered as any of those things.

> 8. By engaging in the conduct set forth in this Complaint, Coinbase has acted as an exchange, a broker, and a clearing agency, without registering as an exchange, broker, or clearing agency, in violation of Sections 5, 15(a), and 17A(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78e, 78o(a), and 78q-1(b)(1)], and for purposes of Coinbase’s violations of the Exchange Act, CGI was a control person of Coinbase under Exchange Act Section 20(a) [15 U.S.C. § 78t(a)]. In addition, through its Staking Program, Coinbase has offered and sold securities without registering its offers and sales, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I promise you, a procedure to become a registered securities exchange exists (demonstrably, as registered securities exchanges exist widely) and Coinbase has enough people and money to find it. (I’m not the expert to hire for this, but https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sec-form-8-a.asp looks promising.)

The question is whether a procedure to become a registered exchange of crypto securities exists, and that promise seems to be a lot more dubious. Coinbase doesn't care if it can offer its customers shares of AAPL or TSLA. They care whether they can start brokering the types of securities that are found on public ledgers.

Public ledgers? When did the government start running ledgers?

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you stopped reading right before you got to the part of the article that really highlights the central lie of Coinbase: > Coinbase, as with most crypto platforms, has decided it wants to simultaneously operate as an exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency. These three functions — bringing together securities orders for buyers and sellers, trading securities on behalf of others, and intermediating trades — a…

> are typically required to be separate due to conflicts of interest that emerge when one entity controls all of them. This doesn't appear to be what the SEC is suing Coinbase for though, and is actually far more applicable to the question "then why were they allowed to go public?" It's possible (likely even) there are nuances I don't grok, but sued for selling unregistred securities is not the same as requiring stru…

My understanding is that having that structural separation is part of what is required to be registered as a securities exchange, and Coinbase is being sued for being an unregistered securities exchange. (That's why the question of whether crypto tokens are securities is important in this case.)

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#118
post #10
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC is not part of the executive branch. It is an independent agency. While it is also not part of the legislative branch, the legislative branch is the one that effectively controls it.

Thanks for the insight. It does feel like the organizations ability to interpret the laws is more related to a political agency than the letter of the law. There should just be a letter of the law , analytical meaning branch of government.

This is never how the law has worked

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#119
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SEC: "The vast majority of digital tokens are securities!" Anyone: "Okay then, is [insert ANY crypto here other than BTC] a security?" SEC: "We decline to answer, or give a hint, but the vast majority of digital tokens are securities!" I really don't care what happens, or how it got to this point, but this state of affairs is absolutely and unequivocally ridiculous and absurd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhA1dZXe…

Coinbase: “We list dozens of coins, including all the big ones. Maybe they’re all in the tiny minority?” SEC: “No. Stop playing games. You have to register.”

That may be the case, but refusing to state which ones and why is not "clarity". Plain and simple.

Like I said, I don't care what happens - but as an outside observer - it's ridiculous.

Re: “But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense

#120
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A congressman asked gensler face to face if ethereum is a security and gensler declined to answer. So no, the SEC has not been clear.

For what definition of Ethereum? The one with staking?

Doesn't matter. He refused to give any indication either way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhA1dZXeao0

Post reply on HN