I read two articles talking about this subject here:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-says-sec-lacks-authority-to-bring-lawsuit-181431862.html and here: https://www.reuters.com/legal/coinbase-facing-sec-lawsuit-says-regulator-lacks-police-power-over-crypto-2023-06-29/
I wonder what others think about this topic. As I have been following this case and writing about it, I believe in the long run they may end up with authority, but do no currently have authority to regulate cryptocurrency. The main point that helped me form my opinion comes from this article that I wrote: https://www.publish0x.com/twodogscaged/is-the-major-questions-doctrine-what-cryptocurrency-needs-xnnokdz her on Publsih0x.
In that post I wrote about the Major Questions Doctrine quoting my own article: "it talks about how the idea of the major questions doctrine has been looked at from the supreme court in two specific ways. One of the ways is that if Congress had not "clearly" identified or "empowered" the agency with regulating, enforcing, or having authority over something it cannot regulate of enforce the thing it has not been empowered or enforced to do so. Second, it indicates an agency without proper authority cannot do so if the issue/business/space has "vast economic and political significance."
I have to say, I like the way COINBASE is going about defending themselves and cryptocurrency in general. Present the facts. The fact is congress has not empowered them to regulate and oversee cryptocurrency. Therefore, it simply regulate cryptocurrency lawfully. They may do so, as they have been trying to do so. In the end, this will make congress act. Will they empower the SEC to regulate cryptocurrency? If so, that may be short term bad for cryptocurrency and long term good. However, there are clearly some of the cryptocurrencies identified as securities that I KNOW will not be deemed securities in the long term. They just do not meet criteria that even a non-crypto believe can see plain as day.
