“But the SEC let us go public” and other flawed arguments in Coinbase's defense
&gt; <i>Coinbase, as with most crypto platforms, has decided it wants to simultaneously operate as an exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency. These three functions — bringing together securities orders for buyers and sellers, trading securities on behalf of others, and intermediating trades — are typically required to be separate due to conflicts of interest that emerge when one entity controls all of them. Coinbase would need to fundamentally change its business model in order to separate these functions, and thus far seems unwilling to do so. “[Crypto intermediary compliance is] not just a matter of ‘paying lip service to [the] desire to comply with applicable laws’ or seeking a bunch of meetings with the SEC during which you’re unwilling to make the changes needed to comply with the securities laws,” said Gensler in a speech a few days ago.</i><p>Can someone knowledgeable here clarify if this really is the crux of the problem?<p>The previous HN thread seemed to mainly be of the opinion that Coinbase wasn&#x27;t registering the non-Bitcoin crypto, but that the problem was the SEC wasn&#x27;t giving clear guidance on whether they needed to be.<p>But I don&#x27;t understand what ramifications that has. Why didn&#x27;t Coinbase just register everything non-Bitcoin? Would that have limited&#x2F;destroyed its business model in the way the quote above suggests?<p>Edit: thank you <i>so much</i> to all the replies so far! This is incredibly helpful.