Where has the SEC stated whether they consider the second largest cryptocurrency, Ethereum, to be a security or not (and thus under their jurisdiction or not)?
If "missing criteria" is nothing but a PR soundbite, perhaps I missed where the SEC shared that criteria.
The last I recall is that the SEC considered all crypto to be a security. And Coinbase is absolutely aware of it. In fact, in the previous sentences to my quote, in their court filing, they are aware, but disagree:
> We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities.
And you seem to miss my point.
Not once in Coinbase's lawsuit did they actually say "We'd love to comply, we just don't know how to".
In fact what they did say was that they knew how to comply, "but the cost and effort makes it not profitable for us".
But because of their PR everyone is latching on to this spin of "we'd love to follow regulation, but we don't know how and no-one will tell us!"
> In fact what they did say was that they knew how to comply, "but the cost and effort makes it not profitable for us".
I don't see anywhere where they said that.
> So why didn't they say that in court?
They did say that in court.
"For years, Coinbase has voluntarily submitted to regulation by multiple overlapping regulatory bodies, has adhered to the public and limited formal guidance from the SEC, senior SEC Staff, and the courts about the application of securities law to its industry, and has begged the SEC for guidance about how it thinks the federal securities laws map onto the digital asset industry as the SEC’s actions reflected an escalating but undisclosed change in its own view of its authority."
The SEC does not consider Bitcoin to be a security because there is no issuer. Etherium is currently a maybe because of the change to proof of stake. Miners are competitors, but stakers all want the price to go up. So there's a common enterprise.
If "missing criteria" is nothing but a PR soundbite, perhaps I missed where the SEC shared that criteria.