SDNY 法院支持 SEC 将 Coinbase 资产归类为证券

2024 年 3 月 27 日，SDNY 法官 Failla 驳回了 Coinbase 驳回 SEC 案件的动议，该动议指控 Coinbase 在未向 SEC 注册的情况下将某些加密资产作为投资合同提供和出售。法院认为，SEC 充分指控的事实表明，其诉状中确定的至少部分加密资产的交易是 Howey 项下的“投资合同”，并且 Coinbase 将其 Stake 计划作为 Howey 项下的投资合同提供和出售。然而，法院驳回了 SEC 的指控，即 Coinbase 通过向客户提供其电子钱包应用程序而充当未注册经纪人。

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，当 SDNY 法官 Failla 驳回被告 Coinbase, Inc. 和 Coinbase Global, Inc.（统称“Coinbase”）就对 Coinbase 做出判决的动议时，SEC 收到了有利的（尽管至少有些分歧）决定。诉状，试图驳回 SEC 在 SEC 诉 Coinbase, Inc. 和 Coinbase Global, Inc. 案中对其提起的诉讼。 Failla 法官部分驳回了该动议，认为 SEC 充分提供了事实证明，至少在某些交易中进行了交易其投诉中指出的加密资产是“投资合同”，Coinbase 将其 Stake 计划作为 Howey 下的投资合同提供和销售。对于 SEC 来说，这一决定也并非完全胜利。法院驳回了 SEC 的指控，即 Coinbase 通过向客户提供其电子钱包应用程序而充当未注册经纪人。

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. 

大约两个月前，我们提供了纽约南区 (“SDNY”) 近期先例的 2024 年最新情况，涉及美国证券交易委员会 (“SEC”) 针对加密资产领域公司正在进行的执法活动。在其中，我们预览了 SEC 针对 Coinbase 案件的部分内容，以及它如何符合我们对 SEC 在 2024 年加密资产市场的执法和监管优先事项的预期。

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. 

背景美国证券交易委员会 (SEC) 于 2023 年 6 月 6 日首次对 Coinbase 提起诉讼，指控 Coinbase 作为未注册的交易所、经纪人和清算机构运营 Coinbase 在其平台上提供的 13 种特定加密资产，违反了联邦证券法。 SEC 还指控 Coinbase 通过 Coinbase 的 Stake 计划提供和出售加密资产，但未将这些提供和销售注册为证券，违反了联邦证券法。 SEC 针对 Coinbase 的案件在 SEC 的许多其他与加密货币相关的执法行动中脱颖而出，因为它针对的是美国最大的加密货币交易所和加密资产二级市场。

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 法官在裁决中认为 SEC 关于这些问题的案件可以继续推进，因为 SEC 诉状中的指控“似乎支持 SEC 的说法，即 Coinbase 作为未注册的证券中介机构运营”。对于 SEC 提出的所有主张，法院根据美国最高法院在 SEC 诉 WJ Howey Co 案中创建的长期先例，对这些加密资产交易是否属于“投资合同”以及“证券”进行了频繁的诉讼分析。 ，328 美国 293 (1946)。根据 Howey 测试，当一个人进行以下行为时，就存在投资合同：(1) 金钱投资； （二）共同企业内的； (3) 对从他人的努力中获得利润有合理的预期。对于 SEC 质疑的某些加密资产，法院发现 SEC 已充分提出指控，根据 Howey 的三管齐下分析，这些资产构成“投资合同”。

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. 

请记住两个不同的项目。首先，在规则 12(c) 动议阶段，法院接受诉状中的所有事实为真实，做出所有有利于 SEC 的合理推论，然后确定这些指控是否合理地产生“救济权利”；简而言之，沉重的负担使得 Coinbase 在现阶段取得胜利充满挑战，而且可能性不大。其次，法院的判决仅限于 SEC 起诉 Coinbase 案件中涉及的 13 种加密资产，并未包含任何有关加密资产行业或 SEC 在该领域更广泛执法权限范围的广泛、全面的声明。与之前的其他案件一样，本案的起起落落都取决于 SEC 指控的具体事实。

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.

讨论 代币交易作为“投资合约” 本案涉及 13 种加密资产，包括：SOL、ADA、MATIC、FIL、SAND、AXS、CHZ、FLOW、ICP、NEAR、VGX、DASH 和 NEXO（统称为“加密资产”）。为了胜诉其主张，SEC 只需要证明这 13 种加密资产中至少有一种是作为证券提供和出售的，并且 Coinbase 中介了与之相关的交易，因此该加密资产的交易相当于运营一种加密货币资产。未注册的交易所、经纪人或清算机构。法院重点关注了所涉 13 项加密资产中的两项：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 辩称，对诉状的判决是适当的，因为 SEC 认定的加密资产交易均不符合“投资合同”的资格，因此在三管齐下的 Howey 测试下也不符合“证券”的资格。

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 并未对 Coinbase 上的加密资产购买者进行“金钱投资”提出异议，因此法院仅讨论了 SEC 是否提出了满足第二个和第三个 Howey 要点的充分指控；即，(2) Coinbase 平台上的加密资产购买者投资于一家普通企业，以及 (3) 购买者可以合理地期望仅从他人的努力中获得利润。

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. 

共同营利企业/“横向共同性”为了确定是否存在共同企业，法院考虑了 SEC 的指控是否确立了“横向共同性”，即投资者的资产汇集在一起​​，每个人的财富都集中在一起。投资者与其他投资者的命运以及整个企业的成功息息相关。最值得注意的是，法院的裁决表明，法院认为，如果没有交易的生态系统，代币本身就不具有内在价值，这一事实将投资者的财富与整个加密资产企业联系在一起，而不仅仅是加密资产本身。

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. 

法院发现，美国证券交易委员会有理由声称存在横向共性，因为代币发行人、开发商和发起人经常表示，他们将汇集这些加密资产销售的收益，以进一步发展资产的生态系统。法院还指出，SEC 认定 Coinbase 承诺，这些改进将通过增加加密资产本身的价值来使所有加密资产持有者受益。法院发现，根据 SEC 的指控，任何加密资产购买的利润“取决于代币的成功发行以及发行后代币生态系统的开发和扩展”。此外，法院解释说，“如果代币生态系统的发展停滞，所有代币购买者都将受到同样的影响，并失去获利的机会。”投资者的利润或损失与加密资产更广泛的生态系统本身相关这一事实满足了 Howey 的第二个方面。

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，法院驳回了 Coinbase 的论点，即 SEC 只能通过断言投资者在普通企业中以收入、利润或企业资产份额的形式获得预期利润，才能确立 Howey 的第二步。通过拒绝这一限制原则，法院裁定 SEC 可以通过更广泛地关注“投资者在其投资中寻求的利润，而不是他们投资的计划的利润”来确立 Howey 的第二个方面。相反，美国证券交易委员会可以通过“股息、其他定期付款或投资增值，而不仅仅是收入或利润”来建立横向通用性。后一类（投资价值的增加）是其他法院用来确定豪伊案件中存在横向共性的一类。正如本法院所认识到的，即使加密资产“毫无价值”，购买者也会购买该资产的数字生态系统，其增长或收缩必然与加密资产本身的价值相关。正是加密资产及其生态系统之间这种“必要”的混合满足了 Howey 的横向共性。

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. 

对他人努力带来的利润的合理预期 法院还裁定，美国证券交易委员会充分陈述了满足豪威第三个方面的事实，即投资者被引导相信他们可以仅通过他人的努力获得投资回报。美国证券交易委员会声称，加密资产的发行人和发起人反复鼓励投资者通过各种媒介（例如网站、社交媒体和投资者材料）购买资产，宣传他们的技术和创业努力将用于改善资产本身的价值。对 SEC 来说至关重要的是，它声称加密资产公司的这些努力“在代币可在二级市场交易后很久”仍在继续，Coinbase 显然承认了这一点。据称，这些声明中包含的出版物告诉一级和二级市场的投资者，从持续销售代币中获得的利润“将反馈到代币生态系统的进一步发展中，这反过来又会增加代币的价值。”因此，法院认定 SEC 合理地声称，可以引导一级和二级市场的客观投资者相信 Coinbase 承诺“完全来自他人的努力”的利润可能性，从而满足了 Howey 的第三个方面。

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，法院驳回了 Coinbase 对通过首次代币发行购买加密资产的投资者与后来通过二级市场交易购买加密资产的投资者之间的明显区别，并指出“联邦证券法的适用性不应该——事实上，对于更多传统证券不仅限于一级市场交易。” Coinbase 试图说服法院，投资者购买的市场（一级市场与二级市场）影响了该投资者的“合理预期”，而且由于二级市场交易不“涉及任何合同承诺的转让”，因此可以不符合“投资合同”的定义。

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. 

法院认为并非如此。相反，投资者根据“发行人向投资公众做出的承诺和要约”“选择任一环境中的投资机会”，并且不区分销售方式和市场。因此，根据法院的说法，“销售方式对于一个理性的个人是否会客观地将[发行人]的行为和声明视为基于其努力的利润承诺没有影响。”在此，SEC 声称 Coinbase“公开鼓励机构投资者和二级市场交易的投资者购买其代币”，并通过转播白皮书和其他可能影响二级市场购买者决策的信息来做到这一点。

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，法院认为，根据一级市场书面协议转让加密资产和没有正式合同的二级销售只是一种“形式主义”区别，与 Howey 判决及其血统相悖。对于法院来说，Coinbase 的论点忽略了这样一个事实：“自 Howey 以来，没有法院采用合同承诺要求。”在此，法院参考了其他 SDNY 法院最近的判决，例如 Jed Rakoff 法官在 SEC 诉 Terraform Labs Pte. 案中的判决。 Ltd.，2023 WL 8944860（S.D.N.Y. 2023 年 12 月 28 日）在确定加密资产销售是否满足“投资合同”的要求时，也拒绝了为合同承诺插入形式要求的请求。

"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."

“进一步讨论这个问题，法院驳回了 Coinbase 的论点，即如果没有正式的合同要求，“SEC 可以对几乎所有投资活动拥有权力。”对于法院来说，Coinbase 的论点有什么不同（法院认为 SEC 寻求的权力可以有效地允许其监管客户“放弃资本以希望其购买的商品‘增值’”的任何投资）根据法院的说法，这里的实际指控是 Howey 的共同企业/横向共性分支，该分支的存在必然限制 SEC 对投资者购买与共同企业（例如代币生态系统）相关的资产的交易的执行权限。法院认为，Coinbase 交易是“购买代币的数字生态系统”，而不仅仅是购买代币本身。法院认为，对生态系统的依赖将这些代币购买与购买“商品或收藏品”区分开来。独立消费或使用。”根据法院的说法，像本案中这样的加密资产交易“必然与[发行人]的数字网络混合在一起——没有这个网络，任何代币都无法存在。”因此，法院驳回了 Coinbase 的论点，即 SEC 的立场使所有投资都为证券，从而赋予 SEC 无限制的监管权力。”

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，法院还发现 SEC 充分指控 Coinbase 本身是加密资产投资合同的发起人，违反了《证券法》第 5 条的规定。 SEC 声称，Coinbase 提供的 Stake 计划构成了 Howey 规定的投资合同，必须根据《证券法》进行注册。

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.” 

法院驳回了 Coinbase 的论点，即虽然 Stake 计划涉及“共同企业”，但其参与者并未在 Coinbase 或其平台上投资资金，参与者赚取的利润也不是来自“他人的努力”，因为 Coinbase 的努力是为了创造利润。回报是“部长级”而不是“管理级”。

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，法院认为 Stake 计划的损失风险足以证明它符合 Howey 的资金投资的第一个方面。例如，SEC 声称，一旦客户将其加密资产交给 Coinbase 并将这些加密资产质押到底层区块链协议中，这些资产就有被“削减”的风险。[1] 尽管 Coinbase 从未遭受过削减事件， SEC 充分声称，此类事件风险的存在（以及因此造成的损失风险）本身就足以值得进行“金钱投资”。美国证券交易委员会还声称，质押程序导致投资者失去对加密资产的控制，因为这样做会将这些客户的钱包锁定在平台中，并使客户无法进行交易或交易。对于法院来说，这种控制权的丧失足以让客户做出一笔投资。

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. 

法院还发现，SEC 的诉状充分指控 Coinbase 承诺并进行了重大的售后“管理”工作，进而导致客户合理期望从其他人的努力中获利。法院认为有说服力的关键事实包括 Coinbase：(1) 保留第三方来抵押参与者资产； (2)部署专有软件和设备； (3)维护流动性池以允许参与者更快地提取； (4) 从投资者资产池中提取“股份”； (5) 通过跨多个验证器节点汇集客户资产，努力增加区块链网络选择 Coinbase 来验证交易的可能性； (6) 整合其技术专长来操作和维护节点并以提供最大服务器正常运行时间、帮助防止恶意行为或黑客攻击并保护质押资产密钥的方式质押客户资产。

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”:

程序性限制不适用除了实质性论点之外，Failla 法官还驳回了 Coinbase 主张重大问题主义、第五修正案和第十四修正案的正当程序条款和/或行政程序法（“APA”）的其他程序论点。阻止 SEC 指控所涉加密资产是“投资合约”：

• 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. 

法院拒绝了主要问题原则[2]的适用，因为虽然规模很大，但“加密货币行业还远远不足以成为美国经济中具有巨大经济和政治意义的一部分。”此外，法院指出，SEC 在国会授予的监管权力范围内行事，监管“几乎任何可能作为投资出售的工具”，并驳回了 Coinbase 的论点，即这是对其权力的不当扩张。鉴于以下指控，SEC 并未违反正当程序条款： (1) Coinbase 反复向投资公众吹捧其熟悉管理证券发行和销售的相关法律标准； (2) 发布了“Coinbase 加密资产框架”，要求发行人提供与 Howey 分析相关的信息； (3) 它与其他人一起成立了加密货币评级委员会，旨在解决豪伊下的资产是否为证券的问题。最后，法院认为 SEC 并未颁布新规则或新监管政策，因此 APA 不适用。 Coinbase、钱包提供商和 DeFi 的关键胜利 对于 Coinbase 或更大的行业来说，这一决定并不是完全的损失。 SEC 声称 Coinbase 通过其钱包服务充当未注册经纪人，违反了《交易法》第 15(a) 条，法院做出了有利于 Coinbase 的判决。具体来说，法院发现 SEC 未能提供有助于证明 Coinbase 通过向客户提供电子钱包作为“经纪人”的辩护事实。

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 有时收到佣金这一事实本身并不能使 Coinbase 成为经纪人。” [强调。] 这一立场可以说与 SEC 在其指南和其他案件中关于收取佣金和其他基于交易的补偿的立场背道而驰。法院还发现，虽然“钱包可以帮助用户发现去中心化交易所的定价，但提供定价比较并不会上升到路由或提出投资建议的水平。”即使将这些因素结合起来，法院也认为，这些因素并不意味着 Coinbase 以法院认可的传统上由经纪人进行的方式进行路由活动，例如向第三方提供交易指令或指导交易应如何进行。被执行。

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. 

结论 继 Jed Rakoff 法官于 2023 年 12 月做出裁决后，该裁决发现，根据法律问题，Terraform 出售的各种加密代币属于美国证券法下的“证券”，此案是 SDNY 法官的又一项裁决，支持 SEC 行使监管权和监管权。对加密资产行业的执法机构。

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.

关于谁来监管加密货币以及如何监管加密货币的争论将持续多年，虽然这在很大程度上是 SEC 的胜利，但这只是一场更大战争中的一场小冲突。必须强调的是，SEC 诉 Coinbase 案中的这一裁决只是初步裁决，仅解决了 SEC 在诉状阶段指控的充分性，并不意味着 SEC 证明了其针对 Coinbase 的指控。事实上，Coinbase 已经寻求向第二巡回上诉法院上诉法院的判决。

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.

该决定还基于所涉及的特定加密资产，并且与该领域的其他决定一样，高度依赖于所指控的特定事实。法院没有对加密货币行业做出广泛或全面的声明，事实上，法院指出，如果特定事实和指控不同，结果也可能不同。确实，美国证券交易委员会的执法行动将继续根据具体案件的事实而起起落落，至少在国会介入并澄清美国证券交易委员会对该行业的监管权限范围之前是这样。尽管如此，法院驳回了加密资产行业在其他案件中提出的许多相同的法律论点，这些论点旨在限制 SEC 对该行业的执法和监管权力。

[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] 削减是一个过程，权益证明网络的验证者因不诚实或行为异常而受到惩罚。它需要从验证者质押的加密货币中扣除预定的百分比。

[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] 重大问题原则要求任何寻求决定具有重大国家意义的问题的机构行动都必须得到国会明确授权的支持。