SEC’s Lawsuit Against Coinbase: Contradiction or Misunderstanding the Approval Process?

Posted on by Artificial Intelligence
Intricate courtroom scene with classic painting style, dimly lit courtroom, tense mood, SEC & Coinbase representatives interacting, judicial figures observing, vintage courtroom architecture, subdued color palette, focused expressions on faces, diverse audience in background, air of anticipation.

The recent lawsuit against Coinbase from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) raised eyebrows as the regulator had allowed the company to go public earlier this year. Though many find this lawsuit contradictory, it is essential to understand that the SEC does not approve direct listings per se but rather ensures that a company has met specific requirements to proceed.

In April 2021, Coinbase received confirmation that the SEC declared effective its registration on Form S-1, related to a proposed public direct listing of its Class A common stock. It is now being sued by the SEC for allegedly operating as an unregistered exchange since at least 2019. Critics argue that the SEC should not have permitted the public listing if there were existing concerns about the company’s operations.

However, Joe Carlasare, partner at law firm Amundsen Davis LLC, points out that the SEC’s decision to allow the listing was made by a different division within the regulator. This division focuses on disclosure rather than evaluating the legality of the company’s operations. Consequently, the SEC approved the registration statement, indicating that Coinbase had disclosed all required information and met relevant requirements to be a publicly traded company.

Bruce Fenton, managing director at blockchain startup Chainstone Labs, supports Carlasare’s argument, stating that the SEC’s approval of a public offering “is not passing merit on the business.” The regulator merely confirms that a company has fulfilled its disclosure obligations and met the necessary criteria to go public.

It is worth noting that Gary Gensler became the SEC’s chair in the same month that Coinbase went public, meaning that the decision to allow the listing predates his appointment. Additionally, Coinbase expanded the number of cryptocurrencies listed on its exchange after going public, which may have caught the attention of regulators.

While some may still see the SEC’s lawsuit against Coinbase as hypocritical or contradictory, it is essential to understand that the approval of a public listing is not an endorsement of the company’s business practices. Furthermore, the approval is not a long-term guarantee that any future changes in strategy would also receive regulatory approval.

Source: Blockworks

Sponsored ad

More Articles

Majestic legal battle scene, scales of justice, crypto coins, united industry, contrasting CEOs, sunlit courtroom, chiaroscuro lighting, impressionist style, somber, resilient mood: SEC vs. crypto giants, charges & differences, market rally, unified call for clarity, precedent-setting outcome.

Battle of the Giants: Analyzing SEC’s Actions Against Binance & Coinbase, Unveiling the Industry’s Resolve

The SEC recently filed charges against Binance and Coinbase, seeking clarity on crypto rules and guidelines. Key differences in the lawsuits raise questions about case severity and potential consequences for each company. Stakeholders’ determination and unity in seeking clearer regulations will propel the industry forward, with lawsuit outcomes possibly setting precedence for the market’s future trajectory.

Futuristic city balancing security & innovation, cryptocurrency in motion, light beams representing regulation, contrasting shadows symbolizing loopholes, a tightrope walker embodying FATF's delicate approach, subtle hints of UN blue, warm & cool tones reflecting the balancing act, global presence in the skyline, crypto industry growth vs. risk mood.

FATF’s Travel Rule on Crypto: Balancing Innovation and Security in a Regulatory Tightrope

The United Nations’ Financial Action Task Force (FATF) urges countries to implement the “travel rule” to combat illicit activities involving cryptocurrencies. However, more than half of surveyed jurisdictions haven’t taken the necessary steps. Balancing innovation and stringent regulatory measures is crucial for maintaining blockchain industry success and consumer safety.

Sunset over Florida skyline, digital versus physical currency, intense contrasting colors, shadows symbolizing privacy concerns, vibrant orange & blue hues reflecting debate, silhouette of people expressing financial inclusion, worried faces illuminating surveillance fears, mood filled with uncertainty, futuristic artistic style.

Florida’s CBDC Ban Sparks Debate: Privacy Concerns vs Financial Inclusion Prospects

Florida recently banned Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), igniting debates on the potential drawbacks of CBDCs, including surveillance and financial habit control. Governor Ron DeSantis voices concerns over central authority imposing environmental, social, and governance criteria, while proponents cite increased financial inclusion and monetary policy control benefits. The future of CBDCs in the U.S. remains uncertain.