In order to justify such a specific claim against Kraken to be heard, isn't it necessary to first qualify that such assets are themselves securities?
Am I crazy to call this vexatious harassment?
If P then Q:
If {x,y,z} are securities,
[ then {Exchanges a, B, and C} have provided securities exchange services of assets {x,y,z} without the requisite license are thus owe a civil fine. ]
But how is a suit against Exchange A the appropriate forum to hear whether assets {x, y, or z} are securities?
Given that - presumably - assets {x,y,z} are not yet ruled to be securities, there was not sufficient cause or standing to make a claim of bad faith or intent to provide exchange services for unregistered securities.
Exchange A operated in good faith, pursued the requisite state and federal procedures for assessing whether or not such assets were securities, and specifically does not intend to sell securities.
Should there be an is_this_a_security() function of a US government regulatory agency, defendants would be required to request such review before listing said specific types of assets.
Am I crazy to call this vexatious harassment?
If P then Q:
If {x,y,z} are securities, [ then {Exchanges a, B, and C} have provided securities exchange services of assets {x,y,z} without the requisite license are thus owe a civil fine. ]
But how is a suit against Exchange A the appropriate forum to hear whether assets {x, y, or z} are securities?
Given that - presumably - assets {x,y,z} are not yet ruled to be securities, there was not sufficient cause or standing to make a claim of bad faith or intent to provide exchange services for unregistered securities.
Exchange A operated in good faith, pursued the requisite state and federal procedures for assessing whether or not such assets were securities, and specifically does not intend to sell securities.
Should there be an is_this_a_security() function of a US government regulatory agency, defendants would be required to request such review before listing said specific types of assets.