I did... the article lists several examples with the claim that the SEC cannot be expected to understand every business under the sun before approving a public sale, completely ignoring the fact that in this case, knowing if a company is operating as an unregistered securities exchange is their supposed expertise and reason to exist.
Do you think that if the SEC thinks that Coinbase is operating some sort of unregulated securities exchange, that they should bring some sort of enforcement action?
Also do you think that if Coinbase admitted that the SEC might take adverse regulatory action in the S1, should anyone be surprised when the SEC actually does?
Sorry but law enforcement entities do not have a mandate for, nor are they required to, tell you specifically whether an act is expressly legal or illegal if you ask them.
Call a police department and ask them if you are allowed to bury your recently deceased relative on your property. They will tell you to get a lawyer. If they feel like arresting you for illegal disposal of human remains you can't use the defense 'but I asked them and they wouldn't tell me'.
I think there is a very important difference here, specifically that the police department is not going around deciding what is and isn't legal but the SEC is deciding what is and isn't a security.
This changes what, exactly? Are you suggesting that the government act as a free lawyer to everyone asking?
Example: 'Would it be fraud if I bought an Amazon gift card with my credit card and sold it for cash since that would be a cash advance but it went through as a regular purchase?'
Would you expect that the FTC answer that question for you in a binding way?
I don't think I said that. You seem to be setting up a(nother) false dichotomy here as if there can only be one end of the spectrum or the other, with no grey area or nuance in-between.
I love it when people refuse to follow the logical conclusion of their own argument and then act like they are being clever when they stonewall with that logical conclusion without realizing what they just did.
You have fallen into the trap of thinking that government bodies tasked with such things should be providing you a customer service -- but they are providing society with a customer service and you are treated as a road would be treated by the government, not as a driver would be treated.
Note: by 'you' I mean if you were in the position of a regulated entity.
But they have, repeatedly, haven't they? Crypto coins except for Bitcoin are securities, and must be treated as such. Any business allowing for their trade must behave like any other securities trade business.
They haven't said that all coins other than Bitcoin are securities. They've said that most coins are securities, and former SEC members have said that Eth isn't a security, but the current SEC isn't commenting on Eth at all.
They have muddied the waters with their public comments.
Hopefully these lawsuits will provide better clarity or we'll have to wait on pending legislation to provide clarity on how the US views decentralized asset classification.
Did you read it?