SDNY 法院支持 SEC 將 Coinbase 資產歸類為證券

2024 年 3 月 27 日，SDNY 法官 Failla 駁回了 Coinbase 駁回 SEC 案件的動議，該動議指控 Coinbase 在未向 SEC 註冊的情況下將某些加密資產作為投資合約提供和出售。法院認為，SEC 充分指控的事實表明，其訴狀中確定的至少部分加密資產的交易是 Howey 項下的“投資合約”，並且 Coinbase 將其 Stake 計劃作為 Howey 項下的投資合約提供和出售。然而，法院駁回了 SEC 的指控，即 Coinbase 透過向客戶提供其電子錢包應用程式而充當未註冊經紀人。

On March 27, 2024, the SEC received a favorable—if at least somewhat split—decision when Judge Failla of the SDNY denied a motion by Defendants Coinbase, Inc. and Coinbase Global, Inc. (collectively, “Coinbase”) for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to dismiss the SEC’s case against it in SEC v. Coinbase, Inc. and Coinbase Global, Inc. Judge Failla denied the motion, in part, finding that the SEC sufficiently pled facts to show that transactions in at least some of the crypto assets identified in its Complaint are “investment contracts” and that Coinbase offers and sells its Staking Program as an investment contract under Howey. The decision also was not a total win for the SEC. The Court dismissed the SEC’s claims that Coinbase acted as an unregistered broker by making its Wallet application available to customers. 

2024 年3 月27 日，當SDNY 法官Failla 駁回被告Coinbase, Inc. 和Coinbase Global, Inc.（統稱「Coinbase」）就對Coinbase 做出判決的動議時，SEC 收到了有利的（儘管至少有些分歧）決定。進行了交易其投訴中指出的加密資產是“投資合約”，Coinbase 將其 Stake 計劃作為 Howey 下的投資合約提供和銷售。對 SEC 來說，這項決定也並非完全勝利。法院駁回了 SEC 的指控，即 Coinbase 通過向客戶提供其電子錢包應用程式而充當未註冊經紀人。

Roughly two months ago, we provided a 2024 update on recent precedent within the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) concerning the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) ongoing enforcement activity against companies in the crypto asset space. In it, we previewed part of the SEC’s case against Coinbase and how it fit into our expectations for the SEC’s enforcement and regulatory priorities for the crypto asset market in 2024. 

大約兩個月前，我們提供了紐約南區 (“SDNY”) 近期先例的 2024 年最新情況，涉及美國證券交易委員會 (“SEC”) 針對加密資產領域公司正在進行的執法活動。在其中，我們預覽了 SEC 針對 Coinbase 案件的部分內容，以及它如何符合我們對 SEC 在 2024 年加密資產市場的執法和監管優先事項的預期。

Background

The SEC first filed suit against Coinbase on June 6, 2023, alleging that Coinbase violated federal securities laws by operating as an unregistered exchange, broker, and clearing agency in connection with 13 specific crypto assets Coinbase offered on its platform. The SEC also alleged that Coinbase offered and sold crypto assets through Coinbase’s Staking Program without registering those offers and sales as securities in violation of the federal securities laws. The SEC’s case against Coinbase stands out from many of the SEC’s other crypto-related enforcement actions because it targets the largest US crypto exchange and secondary market for crypto assets. 

背景美國證券交易委員會(SEC) 於2023 年6 月6 日首次對Coinbase 提起訴訟，指控Coinbase 作為未註冊的交易所、經紀人和清算機構運營Coinbase 在其平台上提供的13 種特定加密資產，違反了聯邦證券法。 SEC 還指控 Coinbase 透過 Coinbase 的 Stake 計劃提供和出售加密資產，但未將這些提供和銷售註冊為證券，違反了聯邦證券法。 SEC 針對 Coinbase 的案件在 SEC 的許多其他與加密貨幣相關的執法行動中脫穎而出，因為它針對的是美國最大的加密貨幣交易所和加密資產二級市場。

In her decision, Judge Failla found that the SEC’s case on these issues can move forward because the allegations in the SEC’s Complaint “plausibly support[ed] the SEC’s claim that Coinbase operated as an unregistered intermediary of securities.” Concerning all the claims advanced by the SEC, the Court applied the frequently litigated analysis of whether these crypto asset transactions were “investment contracts” and thus “securities” under the longstanding precedent created by the United States Supreme Court inSEC v. WJ Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). Under the Howey test, an investment contract exists where a person makes: (1) an investment of money; (2) in a common enterprise; (3) with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others. For certain crypto assets challenged by the SEC, the Court found that the SEC had sufficiently pled allegations that these assets constituted “investment contracts” under Howey’s three-prong analysis. 

Failla 法官在裁決中認為 SEC 關於這些問題的案件可以繼續推進，因為 SEC 訴狀中的指控「似乎支持 SEC 的說法，即 Coinbase 作為未註冊的證券中介機構運作」。對於 SEC 提出的所有主張，法院根據美國最高法院在 SEC v. WJ Howey Co 案中創建的長期先例，對這些加密資產交易是否屬於「投資合約」以及「證券」進行了頻繁的訴訟分析。 293 (1946)。根據 Howey 測試，當一個人進行以下行為時，就存在投資合約：(1) 金錢投資； （二）共同企業內的； (3) 對從他人的努力中獲得利潤有合理的預期。對於 SEC 質疑的某些加密資產，法院發現 SEC 已充分提出指控，根據 Howey 的三管齊下分析，這些資產構成「投資合約」。

Bear in mind two different items. First, at the Rule 12(c) motion stage, the Court accepts all facts in the Complaint as true, draws all reasonable inferences in the SEC’s favor, and then determines whether the allegations plausibly give rise to an “entitlement of relief”; in short, the high burden made a victory for Coinbase at this stage challenging and unlikely. Second, the Court’s decision was limited only to the thirteen crypto assets at issue in the SEC’s case against Coinbase, and did not contain any broad, sweeping declarations about the crypto asset industry or the broader scope of the SEC’s enforcement authority in the space. This case, like the others that preceded it, rose and fell on the specific facts alleged by the SEC. 

請記住兩個不同的項目。首先，在規則 12(c) 動議階段，法院接受訴狀中的所有事實為真實，做出所有有利於 SEC 的合理推論，然後確定這些指控是否合理地產生「救濟權利」；簡而言之，沉重的負擔使得 Coinbase 在現階段取得勝利充滿挑戰，而且可能性不大。其次，法院的判決僅限於 SEC 起訴 Coinbase 案件中涉及的 13 種加密資產，並未包含任何有關加密資產行業或 SEC 在該領域更廣泛執法權限範圍的廣泛、全面的聲明。與先前的其他案件一樣，本案的起起落落都取決於 SEC 指控的具體事實。

Discussion

1. Transactions in Tokens as “Investment Contracts”

Thirteen crypto assets were at issue in the case, including: SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, SAND, AXS, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH, and NEXO (collectively, the “Crypto Assets”). To prevail on its claims, the SEC needed only to establish that at least one of these 13 Crypto Assets was being offered and sold as a security, and that Coinbase had intermediated transactions related therewith, such that transacting in that Crypto Asset amounted to operating an unregistered exchange, broker, or clearing agency. The Court focused on two of the 13 Crypto Assets at issue: SOL and CHZ.

討論 代幣交易作為“投資合約” 本案涉及 13 種加密資產，包括：SOL、ADA、MATIC、FIL、SAND、AXS、CHZ、FLOW、ICP、NEAR、VGX、DASH 和 NEXO（統稱為“加密資產” ）。為了勝訴其主張，SEC 只需要證明這13 種加密資產中至少有一種是作為證券提供和出售的，並且Coinbase 中介了與之相關的交易，因此該加密資產的交易相當於運營一種加密貨幣資產。法院重點關注了所涉 13 項加密資產中的兩項：SOL 和 CHZ。

Coinbase argued that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate because none of the transactions in the Crypto Assets identified by the SEC could qualify as an “investment contract,” and thus a “security” under the three-pronged Howey test. 

Coinbase 辯稱，對訴狀的判決是適當的，因為 SEC 認定的加密資產交易均不符合「投資合約」的資格，因此在三管齊下的 Howey 測試下也不符合「證券」的資格。

Coinbase did not dispute that purchasers of Crypto Assets on Coinbase make an “investment of money”, so the Court only addressed whether the SEC pled sufficient allegations that met the second and third Howey prongs; namely, (2) that purchasers of Crypto Assets on the Coinbase Platform invested in a common enterprise and (3) that purchasers could reasonably expect profits derived solely from the efforts of others. 

Coinbase 並未對 Coinbase 上的加密資產購買者進行「金錢投資」提出異議，因此法院僅討論了 SEC 是否提出了滿足第二個和第三個 Howey 要點的充分指控；即，(2) Coinbase 平台上的加密資產購買者投資於一家普通企業，以及 (3) 購買者可以合理地期望僅從他人的努力中獲得利潤。

1. Common Profit-Seeking Enterprise / “Horizontal Commonality”

To determine whether there is an existence of a common enterprise, the Court looked to whether the SEC’s allegations established “horizontal commonality,” otherwise understood as when investors’ assets are pooled and the fortunes of each investor are tied to the fortunes of other investors as well as to the success of the overall enterprise. Most notably, the Court’s decision suggested it believed that the tokens themselves hold no intrinsic value without the ecosystem in which they trade, and this fact ties investors’ fortunes to the overall crypto asset enterprise, not just the Crypto Asset itself. 

共同營利企業/“橫向共同性”為了確定是否存在共同企業，法院考慮了SEC 的指控是否確立了“橫向共同性”，即投資者的資產匯集在一起，每個人的財富都集中在一起。最值得注意的是，法院的裁決表明，法院認為，如果沒有交易的生態系統，代幣本身就不具有內在價值，這一事實將投資者的財富與整個加密資產企業聯繫在一起，而不僅僅是加密資產本身。

The Court found that the SEC plausibly alleged horizontal commonality because token issuers, developers, and promoters frequently represented that they would pool proceeds from sales of these Crypto Assets to further develop the Assets’ ecosystems. The Court also noted the SEC established that Coinbase promised that these improvements would benefit all Crypto Asset holders simply by increasing the value of the Crypto Assets themselves. The Court found that under the SEC’s allegations, the profits from any Crypto Asset purchase were “dependent on both the successful launch of the token and the post-launch development and expansion of the token’s ecosystem.” Further, the Court explained that “[i]f the development of the token’s ecosystem were to stagnate, all purchasers of the token would be equally affected and lose their opportunity to profit.” The fact that investors’ profits or losses were tied to the crypto asset’s broader ecosystem itself satisfied Howey’s second prong. 

法院發現，美國證券交易委員會有理由聲稱存在橫向共通性，因為代幣發行人、開發人員和發起人經常表示，他們將匯集這些加密資產銷售的收益，以進一步發展資產的生態系統。法院還指出，SEC 認定 Coinbase 承諾，這些改進將透過增加加密資產本身的價值來使所有加密資產持有者受益。法院發現，根據 SEC 的指控，任何加密資產購買的利潤「取決於代幣的成功發行以及發行後代幣生態系統的開發和擴展」。此外，法院解釋說，“如果代幣生態系統的發展停滯，所有代幣購買者都將受到同樣的影響，並失去獲利的機會。”投資者的利潤或損失與加密資產更廣泛的生態系統本身相關這一事實滿足了 Howey 的第二個方面。

Strikingly, the Court rejected Coinbase’s argument that the SEC could establish Howey’s second prong only by asserting investors expected profits in a common enterprise in the form of shares in income, profits, or assets of a business. By rejecting this limiting principle, the Court determined the SEC could establish Howey’s second prong by focusing more broadly on “the profits that investors seek on their investments, not the profits of the scheme in which they invest.” Instead, the SEC could establish horizontal commonality through “dividends, other periodic payments, or the increased value of the investment, not just income or profits. The latter category (increased value of the investment) is one that other courts have used to determine horizontal commonality exists under Howey. As this Court recognized, even when a crypto asset is “valueless,” a purchaser buys into the asset’s digital ecosystem, whose growth or contraction is necessarily tied to the value of the crypto asset itself. It is this “necessary” intermingling between crypto assets and their ecosystems that satisfies Howey’s horizontal commonality prong. 

引人注目的是，法院駁回了 Coinbase 的論點，即 SEC 只能透過斷言投資者在普通企業中以收入、利潤或企業資產份額的形式獲得預期利潤，才能確立 Howey 的第二步。透過拒絕這項限制原則，法院裁定 SEC 可以透過更廣泛地關注「投資者在其投資中尋求的利潤，而不是他們投資的計劃的利潤」來確立 Howey 的第二個方面。相反，美國證券交易委員會可以透過「股息、其他定期付款或投資增值，而不僅僅是收入或利潤」來建立橫向通用性。後一類（投資價值的增加）是其他法院用來確定豪伊案件中存在橫向共通性的一類。正如本法院所認識到的，即使加密資產“毫無價值”，購買者也會購買該資產的數位生態系統，其成長或收縮必然與加密資產本身的價值相關。正是加密資產及其生態系統之間這種「必要」的混合滿足了 Howey 的橫向共性。

1. Reasonable Expectation of Profits from the Efforts of Others 

The Court also determined that the SEC adequately pleaded facts that satisfied Howey’s third prong, namely, that investors were led to believe they could earn a return on their investment solely by the efforts of others. The SEC alleged that issuers and promoters of the Crypto Assets repeatedly encouraged investors to purchase the Assets through various mediums (for example, websites, social media, and investor materials) by advertising the ways in which their technical and entrepreneurial efforts would be used to improve the value of the asset itself. Critically for the SEC, it alleged that these efforts by the Crypto Asset companies continued “long after the tokens were made available for trading in the secondary market,” a point Coinbase apparently conceded. These statements allegedly included publications that told investors in both the primary and secondary markets that profits from the continued sale of tokens “would be fed back into further development of the token’s ecosystem, which would, in turn, increase the value of the token.” Because of this, the Court determined that the SEC plausibly alleged that objective investors in both the primary and secondary markets could be led to believe that Coinbase promised the possibility of profits “solely derived from the efforts of others,” thereby satisfying Howey’s third prong. 

對他人努力帶來的利潤的合理預期 法院還裁定，美國證券交易委員會充分陳述了滿足豪威第三個方面的事實，即投資者被引導相信他們可以僅通過他人的努力獲得投資回報。美國證券交易委員會聲稱，加密資產的發行人和發起人一再鼓勵投資者透過各種媒介（例如網站、社交媒體和投資者材料）購買資產，宣傳他們的技術和創業努力將用於改善資產本身的價值。對 SEC 來說至關重要的是，它聲稱加密資產公司的這些努力「在代幣可在二級市場交易後很久」仍在繼續，Coinbase 顯然承認了這一點。據稱，這些聲明中包含的出版物告訴一級和二級市場的投資者，從持續銷售代幣中獲得的利潤「將反饋到代幣生態系統的進一步發展中，這反過來又會增加代幣的價值。因此，法院認定 SEC 合理地聲稱，可以引導一級和二級市場的客觀投資者相信 Coinbase 承諾「完全來自他人的努力」的利潤可能性，從而滿足了 Howey 的第三個方面。

Furthermore, the Court rejected Coinbase’s apparent distinction between investors that purchased Crypto Assets through initial coin offerings and those that later purchased through transactions on the secondary market, noting that “the applicability of the federal securities laws should not be—and indeed, as to more traditional securities, is not—limited to primary market transactions.” Coinbase tried to convince the Court that the market through which an investor purchased—primary versus secondary—impacted the “reasonable expectations” of that investor, and also that because secondary market transactions did not “involve the transfer of any contractual undertaking,” it could not meet the definition of “investment contract.”

此外，法院駁回了Coinbase 對透過首次代幣發行購買加密資產的投資者與後來透過二級市場交易購買加密資產的投資者之間的明顯區別，並指出「聯邦證券法的適用性不應該——事實上，對於更多傳統證券不僅限於一級市場交易。 Coinbase 試圖說服法院，投資者購買的市場（一級市場與二級市場）影響了該投資者的“合理預期”，而且由於二級市場交易不“涉及任何合約承諾的轉讓”，因此可以不符合“投資合約”的定義。

Not so, according to the Court. Instead, investors “select[] an investment opportunity in either setting” based upon “the promises and offers made by issuers to the investing public” and make no distinction between the manner and market of sale. Thus, according to the Court, “the manner of sale has no impact on whether a reasonable individual would objectively view the [issuers’] actions and statements as evincing a promise of profits based on their efforts.” Here, the SEC alleged that Coinbase “publicly encouraged both institutional investors and investors trading in the secondary market to buy their tokens,” and did to through the rebroadcasting of white papers and other information that could impact a secondary market purchaser’s decision. 

法院認為並非如此。相反，投資者根據“發行人向投資公眾做出的承諾和要約”“選擇任一環境中的投資機會”，並且不區分銷售方式和市場。因此，根據法院的說法，“銷售方式對於一個理性的個人是否會客觀地將[發行人]的行為和聲明視為基於其努力的利潤承諾沒有影響。”在此，SEC 聲稱 Coinbase“公開鼓勵機構投資者和二級市場交易的投資者購買其代幣”，並透過轉播白皮書和其他可能影響二級市場購買者決策的資訊來做到這一點。

Moreover, the Court determined that the argument that transfers of crypto assets pursuant to written agreements in the primary markets and secondary sales without a formal contract was merely a “formalistic” distinction and contrary to the Howey decision and its lineage. For the Court, Coinbase’s argument ignored the fact that “since Howey, no court has adopted a contractual undertaking requirement.” Here, the Court relied on recent decisions from other SDNY courts like in Judge Jed Rakoff’s decision in SEC v. Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd., 2023 WL 8944860 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2023) that also rejected requests to insert formalistic requirements for a contractual undertaking when determining whether a crypto asset sale meets the requirements of an “investment contract.” 

此外，法院認為，根據一級市場書面協議轉讓加密資產和沒有正式合約的二級銷售只是一種「形式主義」區別，與 Howey 判決及其血統相悖。對於法院來說，Coinbase 的論點忽略了這樣一個事實：“自 Howey 以來，沒有法院採用合約承諾要求。”在此，法院參考了其他 SDNY 法院最近的判決，例如 Jed Rakoff 法官在 SEC v. Terraform Labs Pte. 案中的判決。 Ltd.，2023 WL 8944860（S.D.N.Y. 2023 年 12 月 28 日）在確定加密資產銷售是否滿足「投資合約」的要求時，也拒絕了為合約承諾插入形式要求的請求。

"Taking this issue further, the Court rejected Coinbase’s argument that absent a formal contractual requirement, the “SEC could claim authority over essentially all investment activity.” For the Court, what separated Coinbase’s argument (where it argued that the authority the SEC sought could effectively allow it to regulate any investment where a customer “part[s] with capital in the hopes that her purchase ‘will increase in value’”) from the actual allegations here was Howey’s common enterprise/horizontal commonality prong. According to the Court, the existence of this prong necessarily limits the SEC’s enforcement authority to transactions where an investor purchases an asset tied to a common enterprise like the ecosystems of the tokens at issue. In the Court's view the Coinbase transactions were purchases “into the token’s digital ecosystem” and not just of the token itself. The Court reasoned that dependency on an ecosystem distinguished these token purchases from purchases of “commodities or collectibles” that could be “independently consumed or used.” According to the Court, crypto asset transactions like the ones in this case are “necessarily intermingled with [the issuer’s] digital network—a network without which no token can exist.” The Court therefore rejected Coinbase’s argument that the SEC’s position makes all investments securities and thus gives the SEC unbounded regulatory authority."

「進一步討論這個問題，法院駁回了 Coinbase 的論點，即如果沒有正式的合約要求，「SEC 可以對幾乎所有投資活動擁有權力。對法院來說，Coinbase 的論點有什麼不同（法院認為 SEC 尋求的權力可以有效地允許其監管客戶「放棄資本以希望其購買的商品『增值』」的任何投資）根據法院的說法，這裡的實際指控是Howey 的共同企業/橫向共性分支，該分支的存在必然限制SEC 對投資者購買與共同企業（例如代幣生態系統）相關的資產的交易的執行權限。幣的數位生態系統”，而不僅僅是購買代幣本身。法院認為，對生態系統的依賴將這些代幣購買與購買“商品或收藏品”區分開來。獨立消費或使用。”根據法院的說法，像本案中這樣的加密資產交易“必然與[發行人]的數位網絡混合在一起——沒有這個網絡，任何代幣都無法存在。”因此，法院駁回了 Coinbase 的論點，即 SEC 的立場使所有投資都為證券，從而賦予 SEC 無限制的監管權力。

1. Coinbase’s Staking Program as an “Investment Contract”

Separately, the Court also found that the SEC adequately alleged that Coinbase itself was the promoter of a Crypto Asset investment contract in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act. The SEC alleged that the Staking Program offered by Coinbase, constituted an investment contract under Howey and must be registered under the Securities Act.

另外，法院也發現 SEC 充分指控 Coinbase 本身是加密資產投資合約的發起人，違反了《證券法》第 5 條的規定。 SEC 聲稱，Coinbase 提供的 Stake 計劃構成了 Howey 規定的投資合同，必須根據《證券法》進行註冊。

The Court rejected Coinbase’s argument that while the Staking Program involved a “common enterprise,” its participants were not investing money in Coinbase or its platform, and the profits that participants earned did not arise from the “efforts of others” because Coinbase’s efforts to generate returns were “ministerial” and not “managerial.” 

法院駁回了Coinbase 的論點，即雖然Stake 計劃涉及“共同企業”，但其參與者並未在Coinbase 或其平台上投資資金，參與者賺取的利潤也不是來自“他人的努力”，因為Coinbase 的努力是為了創造利潤。

Instead, the Court found that the Staking Program’s risk of loss was sufficient to establish that it met Howey’s first prong of an investment of money. For example, the SEC alleged that once a customer tendered its Crypto Assets to Coinbase and staked those Crypto Assets to the underlying blockchain protocol, those assets were at risk of being “slashed.”[1] Even though Coinbase never suffered a slashing event, the SEC sufficiently alleged that the existence of the risk of such an event (and therefore the risk of loss) was alone sufficient to merit an “investment of money.” The SEC also alleged that the staking procedure necessitated a loss of control in the investors’ Crypto Assets, as doing so locked those customers’ wallets into the platform and left the customers unable to trade or transact. For the Court, this loss of control enough to establish customers made an investment of money. 

相反，法院認為 Stake 計劃的損失風險足以證明它符合 Howey 的資金投資的第一個方面。例如，SEC 聲稱，一旦客戶將其加密資產交給Coinbase 並將這些加密資產質押到底層區塊鏈協議中，這些資產就有被「削減」的風險。 ， SEC 充分聲稱，此類事件風險的存在（以及因此造成的損失風險）本身就足以值得進行「金錢投資」。美國證券交易委員會還聲稱，質押程序導致投資者失去對加密資產的控制，因為這樣做會將這些客戶的錢包鎖定在平台中，並使客戶無法進行交易或交易。對法院來說，這種控制權的喪失足以讓客戶做出一筆投資。

The Court also found that the SEC’s Complaint sufficiently alleged that Coinbase promised and undertook significant post-sale “managerial” efforts that in turn caused customers to reasonably expect profits from the efforts of others. Key facts the Court found persuasive included the fact that Coinbase: (1) retained third parties to stake participant assets; (2)deployed proprietary software and equipment; (3)maintained liquidity pools to allow for quicker participant withdrawals; (4) drew “stake” from pools of investor assets; (5) worked to increase the likelihood that a blockchain network will select Coinbase to validate transactions by pooling customer assets across multiple validator nodes; and (6) marshalled its technical expertise to operate and maintain nodes and stake customer assets in a manner that provided maximum server uptime, helped prevent malicious behavior or hacks, and protected keys to staked assets. 

法院還發現，SEC 的訴狀充分指控 Coinbase 承諾並進行了重大的售後「管理」工作，進而導致客戶合理期望從其他人的努力中獲利。法院認為有說服力的關鍵事實包括 Coinbase：(1) 保留第三方來抵押參與者資產； (2)部署專有軟體及設備； (3)維護流動性池以允許參與者更快提取； (4) 從投資者資產池提取「股份」； (5) 透過跨多個驗證器節點匯集客戶資產，努力增加區塊鏈網路選擇 Coinbase 來驗證交易的可能性； (6) 整合其技術專長來操作和維護節點並以提供最大伺服器正常運行時間、幫助防止惡意行為或駭客攻擊並保護質押資產金鑰的方式質押客戶資產。

1. Procedural Bars Do Not Apply

In addition to the substantive arguments, Judge Failla also rejected Coinbase’s other procedural arguments that claimed the Major Questions Doctrine, the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and/or the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) prevented the SEC from alleging that the Crypto Assets at issue were “investment contracts”:

程序性限制不適用除了實質論點之外，Failla 法官還駁回了Coinbase 主張重大議題主義、第五修正案和第十四修正案的正當程序條款和/或行政程序法（「APA」）的其他程序論點。

• The Court rejected application of the Major Questions Doctrine[2] because, while sizeable, “the crypto industry falls far short of being a portion of the American economy bearing vast economic and political significance.” Furthermore, the Court noted that the SEC acted within the regulatory authority Congress delegated to it by regulating “virtually any instrument that might be sold as an investment,” and rejected Coinbase’s argument that this was an improper expansion of its authority. 
• The SEC did not violate the Due Process Clause given the following allegations: (1) Coinbase repeatedly touted to the investing public its familiarity with the relevant legal standards governing the offer and sale of securities; (2) it released the “Coinbase Crypto Asset Framework” asking issuers to provide information relevant to a Howey analysis; and (3) it founded, with others, the Crypto Rating Council which seeks to address whether an asset is a security under Howey. 
• Finally, the Court found that the SEC was not promulgating new rules or a new regulatory policy and therefore, the APA does not apply. 

1. Key Win for Coinbase, Wallet Providers, and DeFi

The decision was not a complete loss for Coinbase or the larger industry. The Court granted judgment in favor of Coinbase on the SEC’s claim that Coinbase acts as an unregistered broker through its wallet service in violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Court found that the SEC fell short in pleading facts that help establish that Coinbase acts as a “broker” by making a Wallet available to its customers. 

法院拒絕了主要問題原則[2]的適用，因為雖然規模很大，但“加密貨幣行業還遠遠不足以成為美國經濟中具有巨大經濟和政治意義的一部分。”此外，法院指出，SEC 在國會授予的監管權力範圍內行事，監管“幾乎任何可能作為投資出售的工具”，並駁回了 Coinbase 的論點，即這是對其權力的不當擴張。鑑於下列指控，SEC 並未違反正當程序條款： (1) Coinbase 一再向投資公眾吹捧其熟悉管理證券發行和銷售的相關法律標準； (2) 發布了“Coinbase 加密資產框架”，要求發行人提供與 Howey 分析相關的資訊； (3) 它與其他人一起成立了加密貨幣評級委員會，旨在解決豪伊下的資產是否為證券的問題。最後，法院認為 SEC 並未頒布新規則或新監管政策，因此 APA 不適用。 Coinbase、錢包提供者和 DeFi 的關鍵勝利 對於 Coinbase 或更大的行業來說，這項決定並不是完全的損失。 SEC 聲稱 Coinbase 透過其錢包服務充當未註冊經紀人，違反了《交易法》第 15(a) 條，法院做出了有利於 Coinbase 的判決。具體來說，法院發現 SEC 未能提供有助於證明 Coinbase 透過向客戶提供電子錢包作為「經紀人」的辯護事實。

Most notably, the Court ruled that “the fact that Coinbase has, at times, received a commission does not, on its own, turn Coinbase into a broker.” [Emphasis added.] This position arguably runs counter to the SEC’s position on the receipt of commissions and other transaction-based compensation in its guidance and other cases. The Court also found that while “Wallet helps users discover pricing on decentralized exchanges, providing pricing comparisons does not rise to the level of routing or making investment recommendations.” Even in combination, the Court found that these factors as pled did not mean that Coinbase undertook routing activities in a manner recognized by courts to have been traditionally carried out by brokers, such as by providing trading instructions to third parties or directing how trades should be executed. 

最值得注意的是，法院裁定“Coinbase 有時收到佣金這一事實本身並不能使 Coinbase 成為經紀人。” [強調。 ] 這一立場可以說與 SEC 在其指南和其他案件中關於收取佣金和其他基於交易的補償的立場背道而馳。法院還發現，雖然“錢包可以幫助用戶發現去中心化交易所的定價，但提供定價比較並不會上升到路由或提出投資建議的水平。”即使將這些因素結合起來，法院也認為，這些因素並不意味著 Coinbase 以法院認可的傳統上由經紀人進行的方式進行路由活動，例如向第三方提供交易指令或指導交易應如何進行。 。

Conclusion

Coming after Judge Jed Rakoff’s December 2023 decision which found that as a matter of law various crypto tokens sold by Terraform were “securities” under US securities laws, this case represents yet another decision by a SDNY judge that supports the SEC’s exercise of its regulatory and enforcement authority over the crypto assets industry. 

結論繼Jed Rakoff 法官於2023 年12 月做出裁決後，該裁決發現，根據法律問題，Terraform 出售的各種加密代幣屬於美國證券法下的“證券”，此案是SDNY 法官的又一項裁決，支持SEC 行使監管權和監管權。

The battle over who regulates crypto and how it is regulated will go on for years, and while this is largely a win for the SEC, it is merely a skirmish in a larger war. It must be emphasized that this decision in SEC v. Coinbase is a preliminary one that merely addressed the sufficiency of the SEC’s allegations at the pleading stage – it does not signify that the SEC proved its case against Coinbase. Indeed, Coinbase has already sought to appeal the Court’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

關於誰來監管加密貨幣以及如何監管加密貨幣的爭論將持續多年，雖然這在很大程度上是 SEC 的勝利，但這只是一場更大戰爭中的一場小衝突。必須強調的是，SEC 訴 Coinbase 案中的這項裁決只是初步裁決，僅解決了 SEC 在訴狀階段指控的充分性，並不意味著 SEC 證明了其對 Coinbase 的指控。事實上，Coinbase 已經尋求向第二巡迴上訴法院上訴法院的判決。

The decision is also based upon the particular crypto assets at issue and, like other decisions in this space, is highly dependent on the particular facts alleged. The Court made no broad or sweeping pronouncements regarding the crypto industry writ large, and in fact noted that had particular facts and allegations been different, so might the outcome. It remains true that the SEC’s enforcement actions will continue to rise and fall on the facts of the particular case, at least until Congress steps in and clarifies the scope of the SEC’s regulatory authority over the industry. Nevertheless, the Court rejected many of the same legal arguments the crypto asset industry has made in other cases that sought to rein in the SEC’s enforcement and regulatory authority over the industry.

該決定還基於所涉及的特定加密資產，並且與該領域的其他決定一樣，高度依賴所指控的特定事實。法院並未對加密貨幣產業做出廣泛或全面的聲明，事實上，法院指出，如果特定事實和指控不同，結果也可能不同。確實，美國證券交易委員會的執法行動將繼續根據具體案件的事實而起起落落，至少在國會介入並澄清美國證券交易委員會對該行業的監管權限範圍之前是如此。儘管如此，法院駁回了加密資產行業在其他案件中提出的許多相同的法律論點，這些論點旨在限制 SEC 對該行業的執法和監管權力。

[1] Slashing is a process whereby validators of proof-of-stake networks are penalized for acting dishonestly or behaving abnormally. It entails deducting a predetermined percentage from the validator’s staked cryptocurrency. 

[1] 削減是一個過程，權益證明網路的驗證者因不誠實或行為異常而受到懲罰。它需要從驗證者質押的加密貨幣中扣除預定的百分比。

[2] The Major Questions Doctrine requires any agency action seeking to decide an issue of major national significance, to be supported by clear congressional authorization. 

[2] 重大問題原則要求任何尋求決定具有重大國家意義的問題的機構行動都必須得到國會明確授權的支持。