>Congress, not the SEC should be defining what a security (or commodity etc) is.

It's defined by the courts. The Howey Test, which is the modern definition of a security, was drafted by the Supreme Court in 1946.

>Especially as they were so cool with everything pre-FTX...

The feds move slowly. If they are bringing a case now, they've been working on it for years.

> Congress, not the SEC should be defining what a security

I think most would prefer that folks with specialised knowledge make these decisions.

I don't mind politicians taking expert advice (in fact I am very in favour). But it is elected leaders, not just "specialists" who have to have final say on our laws. I think we agree about that right? The SEC must obey congress, not the other way around.

I am sympathetic, but then where will we get these experts? Who will pick them? What happens when they disagree? These are all the standard issues with the idea of replacing democracy with expertise, though I would much prefer we do that at the lower levels even if we don't give them final say...

I agree, it's a complicated mess and you'll always have to battle around the reality that is human nature. I think this and yesterday's news do highlight that the SEC are capable of making the right decisions though.

If these actions were always illegal why have the SEC waiting this long to act? Why did they interview all these people, promise licenses, encourage them etc? Why wine and dine SBF?

If people think Crypto should be banned, make the case. But let's pretend it is banned, that's just silly...

The SEC just lost a ruling (and got roasted by the judge) when they tried to suppress the comments of the previous SEC head explicitly saying Crypto is not a security.

Not to mention the fact that coinbase is a public company, so the SEC allowed them to go public while having a full understanding of their business - an endorsement of what they're doing if you will, yet today it's suddenly illegal. How does this reflect on the SEC?

Going public regs is not about validating business practices, it’s about validating disclosures to investors. Entirely different things.

Really? The Sec is 100% infallible deciding crypto is a security but also 100% too-dumb-know when it evaluates a business as fit for public investment?

In the process of going public, the SEC is not evaluating if the business model of a company is legal, it is evaluating if the company is exercising the proper financial disclosures to market its securities to the public. There are a bunch of publicly traded cannabis companies that have business practices that are illegal under federal law, and the SEC doesn't care. What matters is that the companies disclose to the public that the risks of investment include federal regulation and that their annual disclosuers.

For instance, curaleaf, the largest cannabis company includes this bit:

"The Company derives its revenues from the cannabis industry in certain states of the U.S., and the industry is illegal under U.S.

federal law.

The Company is involved (through its licensed subsidiaries) in the cannabis industry in the U.S. where local state laws permit such activities. Currently, its subsidiaries and managed entities are directly engaged in the cultivation, manufacture, processing, sale and distribution of cannabis and hold licenses in the adult-use and/or medicinal cannabis marketplace in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky (hemp only), Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont; and have partnered with an accredited medical school and obtained a “clinical registrant” license in Pennsylvania. In addition, the Company is indirectly involved (through management services which include the use of the “Curaleaf” brand and retail and cultivation and production operations, human resources, finance and accounting, marketing, sales, legal and compliance support services) in both the adult-use and medical cannabis industry in the states of Maine and Arkansas."

in their 40-F filing here: https://last10k.com/sec-filings/curlf

> If people think Crypto should be banned, make the case.

The lawsuit under discussion is literally making the case that it's illegal.

Yeah, they're making the case, because the case has to be made, because it is NOT settled law.

Personally, I think however the case ends up, congress should be deciding these things, as I said above. But people need to stop assuming bringing a lawsuit is the same as winning one...