The goal should be legal compliance and productive companies.
Not clarifying what you will or will not prosecute simply creates unnecessary fear and distrust of the system. Think of all the crime that would not be committed if only the SEC said it was criminal before hand. Maybe thousands of people wouldn’t have lost money to crypto scams if there were greater clarity.
Want legal advice? Talk to a lawyer. But if your council tells you it's OK to push some boundaries then don't be surprised if you get slapped. And if you don't like getting slapped then you can go to court. Which is exactly what is happening. Seems like the system is working as intended.
Imagine you are outside a store, and there is a police officer outside. You ask them "If I go inside and take some bread off the shelf and walk out without paying, is that ok?". Should the officer say "talk to a lawyer" or should they say "I would arrest you on the way out"?
They aren't offering legal advice, they are just telling you how they will enforce the law. And heck, maybe you'll go to court and get it overturned. But at least you know what enforcement actions will be taken.
Second,
> Last month, the SEC issued Coinbase with a Wells notice, which is often one of the final steps before the regulator formally issues charges. It generally lays out the framework of the regulatory argument and offers the potentially accused an opportunity to rebut the SEC’s claims.
It sounds like Coinbase has gotten the answers they were looking for, they just don't like it.
The SEC isn't dumb enough to be trapped into an opinion that can be twisted around.
So you admit that they do give legal advice. Thank you.