> It's being sued because it's trading a lot of things that aren't BTC or Eth.
Which the SEC was also refusing to rule on, even though it would have been easy and consumer-protective to get that done within a month or two of the coins gaining popularity.
If I don't treat that as uncertainty, I guess I have to assign significantly worse motivations...
When Coinbase did its S-1 it said that it was trading digital assets - not securities and not unregistered securities. It did say that those assets may be considered securities under future regulatory inspection.
The SEC doesn't rule on things. They make rules (not laws), but they don't decide those things. That is the domain of the judicial branch - not the SEC.
The SEC can say "I consider X to be a security" but it's the judges that apply those rules and decide if the proper regulations are followed.
The SEC, as part of the legislative branch makes the rules to follow under its creation as part of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. It can bring things to be enforced or decided to the judicial branch - it isn't the judge or jury.
It would be improper for the SEC to make claims that haven't been decided by judicial branch. The SEC can say "we consider digital assets that can gain value by actions of others to be securities" but its consider - saying "yes, ETH is a security" is something for a judge to decide, not the SEC. The way that is done is for the SEC to take a company that is trading what it considers to be an unregistered security to retail customers to court.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any other regulatory body has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
Coinbase isn't being sued because it's trading Eth. It's being sued because it's trading a lot of things that aren't BTC or Eth.