Coinbase CEO Says SEC Told It To Delist Everything But Bitcoin: Report

[Kakmakr]

Now you should start asking the most important question.... How invested are the decision makers and the government in Bitcoin, if they single it out like that? Surely all Crypto currencies are the same... it is only the token and some of the "parameters" that are different, but it is mostly driven on the same principle. 

They are either invested in Bitcoin or they have plans for Bitcoin in the future.... just mark my words. The SEC is just the tool.... there are higher powers behind them, controlling them like a puppet. 

[1715411098]

1715411098

[1715411098]

1715411098

[1715411098]

1715411098

[Rikafip]

Now you should start asking the most important question.... How invested are the decision makers and the government in Bitcoin, if they single it out like that?

While I would like that what yiou are saying is true and decisions makers actually hold bitcoin, somehow I doubt that's the case and reason why they are so negative towards other cryptocurrencies.

Surely all Crypto currencies are the same... it is only the token and some of the "parameters" that are different, but it is mostly driven on the same principle. 

I beg to disagree that all currencies are more or less the same. Some are heavily premined and sold in ICOs and their whole purpose is to make their creators rich and then we have bitcoin that really stands out.

[eaLiTy]

It is a fair assessment as any project that raised money in the form of initial coin offering should be considered as a security, exchanges wont be happy as they will be loosing out on billions worth of trading volume and their profits will take a huge hit. Either way majority of these alts will go down eventually and it is fair to follow this precedent and will wipe out the scam projects.

[passwordnow]

The SEC is just the tool.... there are higher powers behind them, controlling them like a puppet. 

This means that the people that are behind them are the ones that are more heavily invested in Bitcoin. I think I like that because a smallholder like me is hoping to see them ride that wave that they're creating. And we're noticing on how they're moving like crazy when they're chasing an exchange, a project, and deciding whether it's a security or not. But in summing up this statement they've said, everyone is gonna agree that it's best to just have Bitcoin on them but Coinbase as a business, they will not let it slip the opportunity of making a profit from other coins/tokens by just listing it.

[Silberman]

Perhaps the first reason why Armstrong didn't heed the SEC was that it was all just told to him. It didn't seem like an official order. Can it be legitimate that way? If I were Armstrong myself, I would just dismiss it right away, even if it were relayed in the form of a veiled threat. If it were an official communication from the SEC, then perhaps the CEO of Coinbase could have dignified it a bit.

Other than this, of course, Coinbase can afford lawyers. They can wait for official steps by the SEC and challenge them in court if need be.

Even if it was an order Coinbase has all the rights to refuse and have their day at court, I mean delisting hundreds of coins so suddenly was bound to affect its operations and its customers, most likely causing it to fail at some point in the future, Coinbase as a business cannot accept this so they are going to fight with everything they have for their right to list all the altcoins they want, will Coinbase succeed? I doubt it, as the majority of the altcoins out there do seem like securities to me.

[BADecker]

Perhaps the first reason why Armstrong didn't heed the SEC was that it was all just told to him. It didn't seem like an official order. Can it be legitimate that way? If I were Armstrong myself, I would just dismiss it right away, even if it were relayed in the form of a veiled threat. If it were an official communication from the SEC, then perhaps the CEO of Coinbase could have dignified it a bit.

Other than this, of course, Coinbase can afford lawyers. They can wait for official steps by the SEC and challenge them in court if need be.

Even if it was an order Coinbase has all the rights to refuse and have their day at court, I mean delisting hundreds of coins so suddenly was bound to affect its operations and its customers, most likely causing it to fail at some point in the future, Coinbase as a business cannot accept this so they are going to fight with everything they have for their right to list all the altcoins they want, will Coinbase succeed? I doubt it, as the majority of the altcoins out there do seem like securities to me.

This brings up a great point. If it is an order, where is the authority behind the order that anybody has to obey it? They should ask for this authority, so that they know where they stand.

For example. If a cop gives you an order, where is his authority, especially if you ask for it? If he says it wasn't an order, then you don't have to do what he says. He just told you.

If the cop says it WAS an order, well, he gets paid for following the orders his sergeant gives him. So, you should get paid, too. Invoice him. Make the invoice big, because you didn't agree on an amount ahead of time. Take him to court over it, and stand your ground.

Same with Coinbase.

[darkangel11]

They can't legally do it, because all those coins and their creators weren't indited in court.
Innocent until proven guilty, am I correct?

The procedure is well known and we had a glimpse of it in the XRP case. Don't get me wrong here, I feel like XRP is a security, but it wasn't proven yet, so even XRP that has an ongoing case should not be delisted yet. Other coins that have no cases against them are untouchable for now.

That said, many of them are total scams like that shitcoin HEX, but the SEC has yet to win against them one by one.

[Blitzboy]

The SEC is just the tool.... there are higher powers behind them, controlling them like a puppet.  

This means that the people that are behind them are the ones that are more heavily invested in Bitcoin. I think I like that because a smallholder like me is hoping to see them ride that wave that they're creating. And we're noticing on how they're moving like crazy when they're chasing an exchange, a project, and deciding whether it's a security or not. But in summing up this statement they've said, everyone is gonna agree that it's best to just have Bitcoin on them but Coinbase as a business, they will not let it slip the opportunity of making a profit from other coins/tokens by just listing it.

Yeah, no joke, of course! You're arguing that the big whales, er, Bitcoin developers, are the ones with the biggest stakes? I've got it now. And you're looking for a good wave to surf on, like? That is the attitude!

They certainly move quickly, dont they? Its such a roller-coaster chasing an exchange, a project, and wondering if its a security or not. The real sting, though, is that while its nice to have Bitcoin, Coinbase is a company, right? Man, they want profits. By listing additional coins, they wont forfeit the possibility to make money from those coins. I think they did well.

So, to sum up, Coinbase is opportunistic, Bitcoin is excellent, and smallholders like us are just trying to ride the wave, right?

[Ale88]

I don’t see a problem here. We all know bitcoin is the only crypto that matters in the long run. Even eth and the others will die off in the future but btc will keep going. The SEC is actually giving a wise advice to Coinbase and the baldy CEO of Coinbase should listen to it.

I am pretty sure Coinbase used to be a btc/usd only exchange and if they could do it in the past, they can do it now. The regulators will be happy, the bitcoiners will be  happy, the baldy will get to keep his business… win win win for everyone (everyone but shitcoiners)

I don't really see how you could call that a win-win: the SEC is clearly abusing its power, they not making clear rules and they are not giving straight answers on purpose, if you are a bitcoiner there is no way you could support the SEC and its behavior because that would mean that one day they can just ban bitcoin without giving any explanation. They simply can't do what they are doing.

[bbc.reporter]

Now you should start asking the most important question.... How invested are the decision makers and the government in Bitcoin, if they single it out like that? Surely all Crypto currencies are the same... it is only the token and some of the "parameters" that are different, but it is mostly driven on the same principle.  

They are either invested in Bitcoin or they have plans for Bitcoin in the future.... just mark my words. The SEC is just the tool.... there are higher powers behind them, controlling them like a puppet.  

The skeptical me would agree and it might be good to speculate on what cryptocoin these higher powers want to invest in next heheehe. I am quite certain we will also witness Blackrock, Fidelity and the other institutional investors do something similar to what Barry's Grayscale is doing where they will also have different altcoins included in their investment products hehe. I reckon if a spot ETF for Bitcoin is approved, next is a spot ETF for Ethereum.

[passwordnow]

The SEC is just the tool.... there are higher powers behind them, controlling them like a puppet.  

This means that the people that are behind them are the ones that are more heavily invested in Bitcoin. I think I like that because a smallholder like me is hoping to see them ride that wave that they're creating. And we're noticing on how they're moving like crazy when they're chasing an exchange, a project, and deciding whether it's a security or not. But in summing up this statement they've said, everyone is gonna agree that it's best to just have Bitcoin on them but Coinbase as a business, they will not let it slip the opportunity of making a profit from other coins/tokens by just listing it.

Yeah, no joke, of course! You're arguing that the big whales, er, Bitcoin developers, are the ones with the biggest stakes? I've got it now. And you're looking for a good wave to surf on, like? That is the attitude!

They certainly move quickly, dont they? Its such a roller-coaster chasing an exchange, a project, and wondering if its a security or not. The real sting, though, is that while its nice to have Bitcoin, Coinbase is a company, right? Man, they want profits. By listing additional coins, they wont forfeit the possibility to make money from those coins. I think they did well.

So, to sum up, Coinbase is opportunistic, Bitcoin is excellent, and smallholders like us are just trying to ride the wave, right?

That seems to be it. We're all riding what's currently with the waves now but as soon as we've figured out that Bitcoin is the future and it will definitely shine, we want to hold on to it. While with these companies, puppets, people, and behind them. We don't care about them, we only care with what they do and what's going to be the actions they make to the market because that's where we're going to capitalize and decide our actions based on what they do.

[Spaceman1000$]

SEC should come out plain with their reasons as to why they want those coins delisted.
There are lots of coins that has potentials like the ethereum, litecoin and lots of them.
Because I don't understand what the regulators mean by saying "we're not going to explain it to you, you need to delist every asset other than Bitcoin".
I think the the court should just take a decided stance on this matter, because this is very delicate, as it involves lots of people's investments.

[BenCodie]

I don’t see a problem here. We all know bitcoin is the only crypto that matters in the long run. Even eth and the others will die off in the future but btc will keep going. The SEC is actually giving a wise advice to Coinbase and the baldy CEO of Coinbase should listen to it.

The advice isn't wise. It's putting an end to the ability for anyone to innovate and create something of high value. There are a lot of great creations surrounding Bitcoin. There's no reason why they should be stifled just because one agency says so. I'd say the motives behind telling Coinbase to do it were not with good intent either

I am pretty sure Coinbase used to be a btc/usd only exchange and if they could do it in the past, they can do it now. The regulators will be happy, the bitcoiners will be  happy, the baldy will get to keep his business… win win win for everyone (everyone but shitcoiners)

It's a little naive to call everyone involved in things outside of Bitcoin, shitcoiners. Eth and layer2s are not shitcoins. New solutions with potential to serve additional purposes alongside Bitcoin, are not shitcoins.

The other cryptos are always in babysteps compared to Bitcoin, so i dont see it bad at all.

Once blockchain and cryptocurrency are recognized as a legitimate, regulated form of finance in both the US and globally, then this might not be the case. There are technologies which provide a similar level of value in comparison to Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is the center pillar of freedom, liberty, privacy and ever feature that gold and cash represent. As long as it lives, it breathes life into the possibility of transparent digital finance. Each creation contributes both to Bitcoin and to those who govern the creation.

And also most of them are not reliable neither in price stability and also in changes made it by his owners or users.

Neither is Bitcoin. Yes, these projects are more volatile because they are creations who are still finding their true value. No, owners can not just 'make changes' if it is a true, non-scam altcoin/token. If this is the case, then it's not something that is recognized as a token/altcoin. That would be a scam - which coinbase do not list.

Also to the traditional market its more reliable to show a good thing and solid like BTC and after that it was setled start to analize and offer other kind of crypto, by always with ton of cares.

Bitcoin is more mature, and yes you need more care to explore further than Bitcoin. Though that doesn't mean that everything other than Bitcoin should be labelled as a security.

[BADecker]

SEC should come out plain with their reasons as to why they want those coins delisted.
There are lots of coins that has potentials like the ethereum, litecoin and lots of them.
Because I don't understand what the regulators mean by saying "we're not going to explain it to you, you need to delist every asset other than Bitcoin".
I think the the court should just take a decided stance on this matter, because this is very delicate, as it involves lots of people's investments.

If anybody wants to get out from under the SEC, all they have to do is use wallets and programming that has Private Member Association (PMA) written into the transactions pages. This makes every transaction to be a PMA, with the hash as the identifying configuration. Government has no authority over a PMA as long as it isn't harming the members or damaging their property.

BTW, the members = the sender and the receiver.