Second, you’re arguing they were involved in illegal activities since before going public. How do you know that for sure?
I appreciate this feedback. I like how another commenter put it: "I think there is very little room for this sequence of events to be considered fine" - from a non-crypto-partisan, rule-of-law perspective.
> Second, you’re arguing they were involved in illegal activities since before going public. How do you know that for sure?
Because that is what the SEC is alleging in their lawsuit.
I would encourage you to consider your own priors and read the feedback that you're getting on this idea as well. In spite of your attempts to cut off opposition, there are a lot of very well-reasoned arguments for the SEC's approach.
Which ones do you find convincing?
I'm personally not invested enough (or knowledgeable enough) in this topic to debate you on it, but if you're so sure of your position you'd do well to get out there and defend it.
And investigations obviously take time. We don’t want a securities regulator who blindly files lawsuits against public companies.
Sorry but your arguments aren’t very convincing and I really dislike crypto.
Maybe the SEC will be able to lay out in court that they have been very busy with their investigation since 2019 (the date they are alleging is the latest Coinbase started trading securities).
I doubt it - but even if so, that's just not good enough.
Crypto sceptics generally agree that the SEC has been asleep at the wheel. What they aren't willing to acknowledge is that there are basic, non-crypto-related due process concerns with a regulator who lets a company operate, very publically and thus with its tacit approval, for basically a decade (that is how hold this debate around securities law is) - before then deciding they don't like it after all.