Showing posts with label coinbase. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coinbase. Show all posts

Did Coinbase Just SAVE Crypto... or SABOTAGE It?

Breaking crypto news

Crypto's Biggest Exchange Threw Washington Into Chaos as Lawmakers Consider the 'CLARITY Act'...

When Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, fired off his late-night tweet declaring that his company could no longer support the Senate's version of the CLARITY Act, he didn't just issue a policy critique. He essentially hit the emergency brake on what was supposed to be a landmark moment for cryptocurrency regulation in America. Within hours, the Senate Banking Committee canceled its scheduled markup session. By Wednesday morning, the bill that had been heralded as the future of U.S. crypto policy was in limbo.

On the surface, this looks like a tempest in a teapot - crypto executives bickering over legislative language. But what's actually happening is far more consequential: the largest publicly traded cryptocurrency exchange in America is essentially saying the government's attempt to create clarity around digital assets might actually create more chaos than we have now. And the cryptoquestion becomes: is Armstrong right, or is he throwing a tantrum over lost profits?

What Is the CLARITY Act, Anyway?

Let's back up. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act - CLARITY, for those keeping scorecards - has been the white whale of crypto regulation for the past year and a half. The House passed it in July 2025 with surprisingly broad bipartisan support: 294 to 134. That's not a squeaker. It came to the Senate with momentum and support from the White House. The goal was straightforward: stop the regulatory chaos that's plagued crypto since its inception.

For context, the crypto industry has spent the last few years operating in what legal experts call "regulation by enforcement." The SEC under then-Chair Gary Gensler basically declared most crypto tokens to be securities and went after companies accordingly. The CFTC argued it had jurisdiction over others. Banks had different rules. States had different rules. It was a mess.

The CLARITY Act's core idea is elegantly simple: sort crypto into three buckets, then have the right government agency regulate each bucket. Here's the framework:

Bucket 1: Digital Commodities

(Bitcoin, Ethereum post-merge, most tokens with real utility)

  • Regulated by the CFTC
  • Think of them like futures or commodities in traditional markets
  • Crypto exchanges would register with the CFTC just like commodity exchanges do

Bucket 2: Investment Contract Assets

(tokens that are really just investment contracts, typically early-stage projects)

  • Regulated by the SEC
  • Must follow securities law requirements
  • Once a blockchain becomes "mature" enough (meaning it's truly decentralized), the token graduates and moves to Bucket 1

Bucket 3: Permitted Payment Stablecoins

(USDC, USDT, and future competitors)

  • Regulated by banking regulators
  • Must maintain one-to-one reserves
  • Monthly public audits to prove the backing is real

The House version was widely praised by crypto companies because it finally answered the question: What regulatory framework do we operate under? No more guessing. No more enforcement surprises. Just rules of the road.

Enter the Senate - And Everything Gets Complicated

The Senate Banking Committee didn't vote on the House bill. Instead, it did what the Senate loves to do: it took the house bill as a starting point and wrote an entirely new substitute amendment that rewrites major sections. This is where things get thorny.

On January 13th, the Senate Banking Committee released its new draft text. And here's where the fundamental tension becomes clear: while the House bill was written by crypto advocates trying to get the industry running, the Senate bill was written by senators responding to pressure from traditional finance.

The banks - particularly community banks - took a hard look at the House bill and said: This will destroy us. They have a point, actually. If a crypto exchange can offer users 5% yield on stablecoins while community banks can only offer 4% on savings accounts, where do you think retail deposits are going? The banking lobby told the Senate: you need to choke off stablecoin rewards before this becomes a real problem.

So the Senate draft added restrictions. It says: You cannot pay yield or interest just for holding a stablecoin. Period.

But here's where it gets stupid - and this is where Armstrong's argument has real teeth. You can offer rewards if it's tied to an activity. Pay users for making transfers? Fine. For participating in a loyalty program? Sure. For providing liquidity? Absolutely. But just for... holding... the coin? Nope.

This distinction sounds reasonable until you think about how crypto actually works. In crypto, a rewards program basically becomes indistinguishable from yield. If I hold a stablecoin, click "earn," and get paid 5% a year, does it matter whether the reward is theoretically tied to "participation in a wallet protocol" versus "pure interest"? Not really. It's the same user experience. But the Senate draft basically created a rule that lets regulators arbitrarily distinguish between these things after the fact.

That's not regulatory clarity - that's regulatory ambiguity with bureaucratic discretion on top.

Armstrong's Four-Count Indictment

Coinbase's withdrawal came hours before the Senate was supposed to vote on amendments and advance the bill. Armstrong published a detailed criticism identifying four major problems:

Problem 1: Tokenized Equities Get Effectively Banned

The Senate draft rewrote the rules around tokenized stocks and financial instruments. Under the Senate version, if you want to issue a blockchain-based version of a Tesla share, the SEC will argue it's a security. If it's a security, you need to comply with securities law. And if you try to trade it on a crypto exchange, the bill restricts that pretty heavily. The end result: blockchain-based stocks probably won't be able to trade on crypto infrastructure.

Armstrong's point: why should tokenized equities be barred from crypto infrastructure if they comply with securities law? It's a technological restriction disguised as a regulatory principle. And it kills an entire category of financial innovation that lots of crypto companies see as the future.

Critics of Armstrong's complaint argue he's overblowing it. "We don't interpret the CLARITY draft as a 'de facto ban,' " said Gabe Otte, CEO of Dinari (a tokenized equity platform). "What it does do is reaffirm that tokenized equities remain securities and should operate within existing securities laws and investor protection standards." Reasonable people, reasonable disagreement.

Problem 2: DeFi Gets Slapped With a New Regulatory Hammer

This one is more technical but probably more dangerous. The Senate draft added a new provision (Section 303) that gives the U.S. Treasury Secretary broad power to prohibit or restrict crypto transfers to any jurisdiction or financial institution deemed a "money laundering concern."

On paper, that sounds fine - we want to prevent money laundering, right? But the problem is how this interacts with DeFi. If you're running a decentralized protocol and the Treasury Secretary decides that certain countries are "of primary money laundering concern" in connection with digital assets, the Treasury could basically force every user of that protocol to stop using it. Or it could demand that protocols implement surveillance to track transactions.

Armstrong's concern: this essentially gives the Treasury power to impose sanctions on software protocols. That's different from sanctioning companies. Software is decentralized. You can't negotiate with code. The result could be that American developers are barred from working on DeFi protocols that the government doesn't like, even if those protocols have legitimate uses.

Again, reasonable people disagree. Maybe this is necessary anti-money laundering tools for the 21st century. Or maybe it's an unprecedented expansion of government power over open-source software. Depends on your priors.

Problem 3: SEC Gets More Power Than It Had in the House Version

The House bill carved out pretty clear CFTC vs. SEC jurisdictions. The Senate bill kept moving the boundary line in favor of the SEC.

Armstrong worried this could resurrect the regulatory uncertainty of the recent past. If the SEC can expand its jurisdiction over crypto markets case by case, then we're back to "regulation by enforcement" rather than "clarity."

This is a legitimate concern, though the Senate Banking Committee pushed back, saying the bill actually provides clear coordination mechanisms between the SEC and CFTC. Fair point - depends how you read the language.

Problem 4: Stablecoin Rewards Really Do Get Effectively Killed

As described above, the Senate draft says you can't pay yield for just holding a stablecoin. You can pay rewards for activity. But the line between "activity" and "passive holding" is blurry, and regulators will likely draw it conservatively.

For Coinbase specifically, this is huge because the company has been offering stablecoin yield products. They even applied for a national trust bank charter, which would let them offer these products under banking rules instead of crypto rules. If the CLARITY Act passes, that loophole closes.

Armstrong's argument: if traditional banks can offer interest on deposits, and crypto companies offer interest on stablecoins, that's not unfair competition - that's equal treatment. The Treasury itself estimated that widespread stablecoin adoption could drain $6.6 trillion from traditional banks, and the banking industry is obviously scared.

But bankers would counter: stablecoins are not bank deposits. They don't have FDIC insurance. They're not subject to the same capital requirements or anti-money-laundering scrutiny. So rewarding stablecoin holding with high yields creates an unleveled playing field - it's the same economic outcome (yield) but with wildly different regulatory protection.

The Industry Fracture

Here's what's fascinating about this moment: Coinbase did not speak for the entire crypto industry. In fact, it barely spoke for most of it.

Within 24 hours of Armstrong's announcement, rival exchanges and crypto companies pushed back. Hard.

Kraken CEO Arjun Sethi said the "appropriate response to unresolved issues is to address them, not to discard years of bipartisan advancement and start anew."

Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), one of the most influential crypto voices in Washington, said that while the bill has flaws, delaying crypto regulation could weaken America's position in global financial innovation.

Ripple's CEO Brad Garlinghouse called it "progress toward workable market rules."

Circle, Paradigm, Coin Center (a policy think tank), the Digital Chamber, and even David Sacks, the White House's crypto policy adviser, all publicly urged the industry not to abandon the bill.

The subtext was clear: Coinbase is holding the entire industry hostage for its business interests.

And there's something to that. Coinbase is the only major publicly traded crypto exchange in the U.S. It's also a platform that has explicitly built its business model around stablecoin yields. Other exchanges and crypto companies are less dependent on that particular revenue stream. A16z doesn't run an exchange. Circle (which issues USDC) has a different product mix than Coinbase.

So when Coinbase says "this bill is worse than no bill," part of what it's saying is "this bill is worse for Coinbase's business model." And that's not wrong - but it's also not the only consideration.

The Deadline Pressure

Here's what makes this moment genuinely urgent: Congress only gets so many windows for consequential legislation, and this one might be closing.

The crypto industry has had unprecedented political influence over the past year. Bitcoin rallied, bringing in new retail investors. Coinbase went public. A16z dumped hundreds of millions into pro-crypto political campaigns and advocacy. The White House is genuinely interested in crypto policy now. Republicans and Democrats both have major crypto donors.

But all of that changes when you elect a new administration. Even within the Trump administration (which is generally pro-crypto), there will be leadership changes. New SEC chairs, new CFTC chairs, new Treasury officials. And they might not be as enthusiastic about crypto-friendly regulation.

For the industry, the question is: Do we take this bill - which has legitimate flaws but establishes a regulatory framework - or do we hold out for a perfect bill that might never come?

That's why other industry figures are pushing so hard to convince Coinbase to negotiate rather than walk away. Ledger executives literally told the Senate: if you don't get a bill done now, the next administration might be much less sympathetic.

What Actually Needs to Happen

As of late January, the Senate Banking Committee is still in negotiations. Chair Tim Scott called it a "brief pause" to allow for renegotiation. The goal is to bring a revised bill back to markup in the coming weeks.

What would need to change for Coinbase to re-engage?

Realistically, the stablecoin rewards language would need to be cleaned up. Either explicitly exempting activity-based rewards, or creating a safe harbor so platforms know when they're compliant. The Section 303 DeFi language probably needs narrowing to focus on financial institutions rather than open-source software. And the tokenized equity and SEC authority questions need further clarification.

None of that is impossible. But it requires both sides to compromise. The banks want stablecoin restrictions; the crypto companies want rewards flexibility. Crypto companies want clear DeFi protections; Treasury and enforcement-focused senators want tools to combat illicit finance.

The Stakes

What's interesting about all this is that the drama is real, but it can obscure the actual point: the U.S. crypto industry desperately needs this bill.

Under the current system, crypto companies operate in regulatory limbo. They don't know if the SEC will declare their token a security. They don't know if payment stablecoin activity violates banking law. They don't know if their custody practices meet federal requirements. This uncertainty is expensive. It drives activity overseas. It makes it harder to recruit and retain talent when you can't guarantee your company won't get sued by the government next year.

The CLARITY Act, even with the Senate's modifications, would fix most of that. It would give crypto companies a clear regulatory framework. It might not be the framework crypto companies wanted, but clarity on a suboptimal rule is still better than no clarity.

That's why you have a16z, Ripple, Kraken, and major crypto figures all saying: let's fix the specific language issues, but don't throw the whole thing away.

Coinbase is arguing something different: the specific language issues are so fundamental that they make the bill worse than the status quo. 

Is Armstrong right? Maybe. The stablecoin rewards prohibition really might kill financial innovation. The Treasury power over DeFi really might be too broad. Maybe a bill with better terms will come along.

Or maybe Coinbase is making a short-term business decision dressed up as a principle. Maybe in six months, with a cleaned-up bill that still restricts stablecoin rewards but provides certainty on other issues, Coinbase will re-engage. And the industry will get the regulatory framework it actually needs.

That's the real drama here: not the politics, but the fundamental question of whether the crypto industry is mature enough to accept an imperfect but enforceable set of rules, or whether it will forever resist any regulation that constrains specific business models. The CLARITY Act will test that question in real time.

And for what it's worth, right now, most of the industry seems to think the answer is: take the deal. Fix what you can. Move forward.

Whether Coinbase agrees with that assessment by late January - well, that will tell us a lot about the company's priorities.

What I'll be watching for...

One thing Coinbase and its CEO did not make clear - what are the absolute deal breakers that must be resolved before they could support it again, and what could be passed now with the goal of changing it later?

Was Coinbase's pullout more along the lines someone walking out during contract negotiations when they think the deal is bad? Where the goal isn't to end discussions, just move things in their favor. Or have politicians gutted and re-written so much of the bill, it's a lost cause?

-------------
Author: Ross Davis
Silicon Valley Newsroom
GCP | Breaking Crypto News

Ripple Team MOCKS The SEC Following Another Legal Win "This is not a settlement - This is a surrender by the SEC"...

SEC vs Ripple

The SEC's legal battle against Ripple involved coming after them on 2 fronts - first was their claim the company illegally profited by selling an unlicensed security (XRP Tokens) violating the Securities Act of 1933. The second targeted the company's co-founders Christian Larsen and Bradley Garlinghouse, saying they were the ones who made the decisions at the company, so they were charged with "aiding and abettting”.

Today, the SEC's targeting of Larsen and Garlinghouse has officially come to an end as District Judge Analisa Torres announced that the US securities regulator notified the court that it would not continue in the case and has issued a “voluntary dismissal”.

Ripple's lead lawyer Stuart Alderoty shared the news first saying;

"The SEC made a serious mistake going after Brad & Chris personally – and now, they’ve capitulated, dismissing all charges against our executives. This is not a settlement. This is a surrender by the SEC.

That’s 3 consecutive wins for Ripple including the July 13 decision ruling that as a matter of law XRP is NOT a security, the Oct 3 decision denying the SEC’s bid for an interlocutory appeal, and now this." on X.

Current CEO Brad Garlinghouse responded saying;

"In all seriousness, Chris and I (in a case involving no claims of fraud or misrepresentations) were targeted by the SEC in a ruthless attempt to personally ruin us and the company so many have worked hard to build for over a decade.

The SEC repeatedly kept its eye off the ball while secretly meeting with the likes of SBF – failing again and again to protect US consumers & businesses. How many millions of taxpayer $ were wasted?! Feels good to finally be vindicated."

FTX a Massive Blemish On An Already Troubled SEC...

The SEC's 'crack down' on crypto has targeted companies like Coinbase, Binance and Ripple - but where are the investors accusing these companies of wrongdoing? Who did Coinbase, Binance, or Ripple scam? You would think reddit and other crypto related forums would be full of these complaints, but when searching for terms that should lead to them, nothing is found.

While the SEC was busy targeting these companies, FTX was actively misusing users funds and behaving suspiciously fearless of being caught.  Ironically, it was one of the people under SEC investigation who brought the FTX issue to light - Binance CEO 'CZ'.

This means if CZ had not exposed Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX would still be freely spending their users funds, while their top 2 competitors faced SEC harassment - suspicious to say the least.

It makes you wonder - could SEC deliberately be hiding corruption by appearing ignorant and disorganized? 

The Strangest Contradiction...

The most alarming and confusing factor in the SEC's current actions has to be the fact that the SEC evaluated Coinbase just a couple years ago, when they approved the company to go public and sale shares of their stock.  This process involves a deep evaluation of the business, and obviously, if a business's main source of income was unlawful, they would not have been approved.

But they were approved. Coinbase even passed a phase where the SEC asked questions about any parts of the business they wanted clarification on, Coinbase answered them, and they were approved. 

Nothing has changed since Coinbase was worthy of SEC approval. There's no new leadership at the SEC since they deemed Coinbase's business legitimate just two years ago, Coinbase isn't offering anything now that they were not then. But seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly Coinbase is operating outside of the law. 

So SEC saying;  just because they approved a company seeking approval to go public and sell share shares on the stock market, it does not mean that company is legitimate - no one has been able to make sense of why the SEC is now undermining themselves in such an extreme way.

Next For Ripple...

While the charges against company founders are dropped, the case against the company itself is still considered ongoing.  While the SEC lost on their first attempt, the last statement from them was that they are appealing that decision.

But some say dropping the charges against the founders is a sign they may do the same with the charges against the company - because if the company is guilty, those running it would be as well - it would be odd to drop one and not the other.

-------
Author: Mark Pippen
London Newsroom
GlobalCryptoPress | Breaking Crypto News


With Competition Like BlockFi, Celsius, and Genesis ELIMINATED, Coinbase Launches Crypto LENDING For Institutional Clients...

 

Coinbase crypto lending

Coinbase, one of the world's most prominent cryptocurrency exchanges, has recently unveiled its new lending service, specifically designed for U.S institutional clients. This move signifies a strategic expansion of Coinbase's offerings, aiming to cater to the growing demand for crypto-backed financial services. Here's an in-depth look at what this new service entails and its potential implications for the crypto industry.

While specific details about the lending service's features are yet to be fully disclosed, it's expected that the service will allow institutional clients to borrow against their crypto holdings, with rates varying based on the type and amount of cryptocurrency used as collateral.

Smart Timing...

The decision to launch their lending service comes in the backdrop of the bankruptcies BlockFi and Genesis within the past year, these would have been their main competition.

Coinbase can enter the market leveraging their established reputation and infrastructure, as most people feel Coinbase would not repeat the mistakes of previous failed lenders. 

Traditional financial markets offer a myriad of lending and borrowing options, the crypto market has been playing catch-up. Coinbase has a chance to now fill this significant gap in the crypto market, which will attract institutional investors that may have been waiting for these options to become available. 

Financial Backing...

According to a filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Coinbase has successfully raised $57 million for this new venture as of September 1st. While this isn't a massive amount, it's enough to allow Coinbase to prove their potential and gain confidence in their lending model, if successful, access to more capital will come easily.

Potential Challenges

Coinbase's foray into lending is not without challenges. The company is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the SEC, which has accused it of operating as an unregistered Securities Exchange broker and clearing agency. This lawsuit, initiated in June, could have implications for Coinbase's lending service, especially concerning regulatory compliance and the classification of crypto assets.

Wider Implications:

Coinbase's lending service could benefit the market as a whole, as increased liquidity and  making it easier for institutional clients to leverage their assets is bound to attract new investors, and entice current investors to increase their holdings. 

The one question worth considering - Coinbase isn't the only exchange that offers services beyond trading, many now seem to be aiming to become a "1 stop shop" offering every service that has a demand for it.

I'm honestly undecided on if this is a good or bad thing.  Under responsible leadership there are some clear advantages of a high-volume exchange offering services they can support with their existing resources. 

But it's an unpredictable world, even more so when it comes to crypto and tech - which is why I can't help but feel a bit nervous when I see a single company offering a dozen services, in an industry where companies offering a single service can suddenly find themselves struggling to stay alive. Companies with multiple revenue streams also run a risk of draining resources from healthier portions of the business in order to fill the losses of failed ventures.

However, this isn't a major concern in this specific scenario, as Coinbase has proven themselves a company evaluates long term results and avoids overly risky behavior, which stands out in the crypto world.

------- 
Author: Jules Laurent
Euro Newsroom | Breaking Crypto News 

Coinbase Launches Non-US Company "Coinbase International" - A Warning Shot to US Regulators: Provide Clear Rules, or Companies will LEAVE...

Coinbase International

Coinbase, the well-known American cryptocurrency company, just dropped some major news: the launch of its newest exchange, "Coinbase International." 

Thanks to a recent regulatory license approval from the Bermuda Monetary Authority, this new platform will allow Coinbase to operate globally and expand its reach beyond the US market.

Currently, Coinbase is ranked as the second-largest exchange globally, trailing behind its competitor Binance, which interestingly did the reverse - starting internationally and then launching a US exchange.

However, at the time of its launch, Coinbase International will exclusively cater to institutional investors outside of the United States, meaning that retail traders will have to wait a bit longer to gain access.

With this comes a first for Coinbase - leveraged trading. Coinbase International will offer leveraged trading, but they're starting small with a maximum 5X leverage option.

A Warning Shot...

Coinbase's move into the international market may also serve as a warning to the US government, particularly the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to provide more clarity and answers to unresolved questions regarding crypto regulations. 

If they continue to fail in their duties, they risk pushing companies like Coinbase out of the US market, which could have a significant economic impact, leading investors to seek out unregulated areas of the market.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong was asked if Coinbase would relocate entirely if regulators continued to fail to provide clarity, he said "anything is on the table".

More info soon...

Unfortunately, Coinbase has not revealed which countries will have access to the new exchange, but you can sign up on their platform to see if you're eligible.

-------
Author: Mark Pippen
London News Desk 
Breaking Crypto News

CoinBase Posts $1.1 Billion Second Quarter 2022 Loss - Coinbase COO Explains What This Means For the Company...

 Coinbase posted a $1.1 billion second-quarter loss and lower-than-expected revenue as the largest US cryptocurrency exchange was battered by tumbling digital-asset prices. Shares slid on the news after the close. In this video Coinbase President and COO Emilie Choi speaks to Bloomberg.

Video courtesy of Bloomberg

Coinbase Faces Lawsuit Over Failed Stablecoin... and it isn't TerraUSD!

coinbase lawsuit gyen stablecoin

Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase was chastised for promoting and facilitating the trade of the GYEN stablecoin, which turned out to be a failure. GYEN is a cryptocurrency that was created on the Ethereum network to match the value of the Japanese yen.

"Donovan," a representative of "hundreds of users" of the platform in the case, filed the claim in the Federal Court of North Carolina, United States.

In addition to the exchange, the lawsuit also names GMO-Z.com as the issuing business of the GYEN token. These two entities are accused of giving investors inaccurate information about the cryptocurrency's reliability when Coinbase launched it for exchange and released a guide outlining its key features.

According to the lawsuit, investors would have purchased the GYEN tokens believing that each one was worth one yen, but their value was "inflated."

The token's value sank by more than 80% in a single day.

According to CoinMarketCap statistics, GYEN is now trading at $0.0077, while the correct price is $0.77 USD per yen at the time of writing, that is 10X lower than intended.

GMO-Z also has another stablecoin, ZUSD (ZUSD), that is pegged to the value of the US dollar but has found a way to keep its peg to the currency.

The lawsuit currently awaits review, filed in the US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
 ------- 

Author: Justin Derbek
New York News Desk
Global Crypto Press Association / Breaking Crypto News

Shopify CEO Joins Coinbase Board Of Directors...

 

Coinbase Announcement

Coinbase posted the announcement on their blog:

"Tobi brings a wide variety of skills and expertise to the Coinbase board. First and foremost, he is a tremendous entrepreneur, building Shopify from the ground up into a global commerce leader. He also deeply believes in the power of crypto and was an early adopter of crypto through Shopify’s integration with Coinbase Commerce. Serving millions of merchants in more than 175 countries, Shopify sits at the nexus of three important areas that crypto seeks to revolutionize: Finance and payments, web applications, and the internet itself.

A builder at heart, Tobi began writing computer code in his early teens. He soon became an active member of the open source community, contributing to projects such as Ruby on Rails, Liquid and ActiveMerchant. Building on his experience developing open source projects, Tobi launched an ecommerce platform in 2004 focused on selling snowboarding equipment. This online store soon grew into what we know today as Shopify. Tobi’s experience as a founder & CEO, scaling his business from a small, niche online marketplace into what has become a critical backbone of global ecommerce will help guide Coinbase as we seek to bring crypto to more people and businesses around the world."

Which brings the obvious question to mind: will Shopify soon support cryptocurrency payments?

In 2021 they set a new annual revenue earnings record of $1.12 billion - giving Tobi the title of "Canada’s wealthiest company founder".

Read the full announcement here.

---------
GlobalCryptoPress.com / Silicon Valley Newsroom
Breaking Crypto News

Two Former Government Regulators Hired By Top Crypto Exchanges Have Recently Resigned...

 

Two Former Government Regulators Hired By Top Crypto Exchanges Have Recently Resigned

Last Friday Binance US lost their CEO after just 3 months. Prior to taking the role with Binance, he served as acting comptroller in the Trump administration.

Brian Brooks gave as the reason for his departure disagreements over strategic direction.

And the 2nd former regulator to leave a top crypto firm in recent days...

Brett Redfearn has resigned as Coinbase's head of capital markets after just four months in the job.

Redfearn, a former Securities and Exchange Commission official, was the SEC's director of the trading and markets division prior to joining Coinbase.

According to sources familiar with the matter, Redfearn's departure was triggered by Coinbase's shift in focus away from digital asset securities.

A spokesperson from Coinbase confirms the story and says the Redfearn left to pursue other goals, but on positive terms.

What does it mean?

Not much, in my opinion. Binance US's search for stable leadership has been an ongoing issue... which is clearly still ongoing. 

In the case of Coinbase, it seems Redfearn's expertise wasn't as necessary as initially thought.

------- 

Author: Justin Derbek
New York News Desk
Breaking Crypto News

Shots Fired - Robinhood CEO Says Coinbase's Fees Too High, Shares Goal Of Expanding Crypto Offerings...

Robinhood has had a rough month following halting users from buying stock in Gamestop after Reddit pumped it, in a story too long to summarize.

Just know it ends with Robinhood claiming they're innocent, and were forced to stop because of regulations that apply to them having to do with the amount of stocks they hold for customers and maintaining a percentage of funds in the bank for all of them. But there's still no shortage of angry traders who left the platform and still rant about it today.

In a video (above) just posted to Robinhood's YouTube channel, CEO Vlad Tenev seems to have what he believes may be the path back to being respected by the young tech savvy professionals they've always targeted - by becoming the new, less expensive, major crypto exchange? 

Aftermath of Coinbase's CEO Telling Employees That Their Company Is About Crypto (Not Social Issues and Political Activism)...


Coinbase's CEO sent a company notice out to all the employees last week, the point being that the company was about cryptocurrency trading and will not be distracted by unrelated issues of social activism or politics. 

At least 60 employees left the company in response.

But that's a small portion of the 1000+ total employees, and based on the memo, these are the people Coinbase doesn't want anyway.  "No loss" as far as they are concerned. 

Video courtesy of CNBC

Why Are So Many Executives Leaving Coinbase? As Their President and COO Announces He's Next To Go, We Take A Closer Look...

Coinbase President and COO Asiff Hirji announced his departure from Coinbase today, with Emilie Choi, VP of Business and Data set to replace him.

"His experience and mentorship helped guide Coinbase through an important chapter in its history. He joined at a critical time when both the company and crypto space were going through rapid growth, bringing his extensive experience to bear when it was most necessary." says CEO Brian Armstrong.

But he's just the latest in a string of high level executives moving on, and that's raised some concerns.

Other recent departures include Chief Technology Officer Balaji Srinivasan, institutional sales director Christine Sandler, and vice president and general manager Adam White.

So, is something going wrong inside of Coinbase? I spoke with one of my contacts inside of the company, who insists Coinbase is thriving - in fact, they're doing so well, other companies want their leaders for themselves.

"It's a mixed blessing, cryptocurrency is about to take off in a big way and major instutional players from Wall Street want to be in a profitable position when it does.  That means they're turning to companies like Coinbase for talent.  If you're looking to hire someone with experience in insutional cryptocurrency investing, who based in the US - we're the obvious target."  as far as how Coinbase is performing, they add "Coinbase's success is why our employees are in high demand, our team has pulled off exactly what these other companies hope to do.  We're holding over $1 billion worth of crypto in our custody service, half of US trading volume comes from us, and the company's latest funding round valued it at $8 billion."

These claims all seem to check out, leading me to believe Coinbase really is doing just fine - for now.

Where this becomes risky is possibly being unable to replace talent leaving, with talent equally or better qualified.  So far, they seem to have been able to - but keeping talent is always preferred over taking the risks that come with replacing someone.

The faster the revolving door spins, the higher that risk goes - that's how companies have found themselves in a position where multiple departments lack proper leadership at once - the turn from 'hugely successful' to 'sinking ship' can happen in the blink of an eye.

Coinbase may need to explore increasing incentives for high-level employees to stick around.

-------
Author: Ross Davis
E-Mail: Ross@GlobalCryptoPress.com Twitter:@RossFM
San Francisco News DeskUS Crypto Traders - Claim Your $25 BTC...


After years of hurling insults and slander at Coinbase, Ripple fans celebrate victory! A look back on how it all went down...

It's official - the 'XRP Army' has won the war - CoinBase has decided to list their favorite token! While everyone is best friends now, 48hrs ago it was a different story... seriously, about as different as a story can be.

Anyone who's in crypto, and on Twitter, has undoubtedly been subjected to seeing every Tweet posted by, or related to Coinbase or their leadership, get totally taken over by the 'XRP Community'  aka 'XRP Army' as they absolutely ripped Coinbase apart.

It became so bad, i'm somewhat shocked Coinbase added them, and now we finally know the trick to get a coin listed - verbally assault them daily on social media.

While the XRP community celebrates their official listing on Coinbase - I thought it would be fun to look back at all the good times!

If you're part of a project with a token and dream about one day being listed on Coinbase - take notes, this is how it's done...













What else is there to say? It worked!

So... good job?

-------
Author: Oliver Redding
Seattle News Desk

Exclusive: Coinbase rules against listing Bitcoin SV, allows withdraws only - learn why...


It took 3 months, but CoinBase is finally allowing users to withdraw any Bitcoin SV (BSV) they earned from holding Bitcoin Cash during the fork.

If you have any, you should have an e-mail from Coinbase now with instructions on how to withdraw the BSV to somewhere that does support it - Coinbase has decided that won't be them.

I spoke exclusively with one of my contacts inside of Coinbase to find out why they decided against giving BSV an exchange listing.  This is someone high enough up to have a role in the decision making process, and they agreed to give me 'the blunt truth' if I do not include their name and emphasize that this is not an official company statement on the issue.

I was told:

"Honestly if you asked this a couple months ago I may have said we 'likely will' add it to the exchange, or at least CoinBase Pro.

But as we evaluated it, it seemed like 90% of  BSV mentions in the press were part of articles covering something erratic its founder was doing or saying. Almost any article that mentions Bitcoin SV also includes something or someone that Craig is 'going to war' with and if that's not the theme, it's an article about Craig lying, like his 'I'm Satoshi' stunt.

All that aside an analyst here also believed that the historical trading data on BSV showed patterns that in his opinion looked like supporters emotionally buying, and haters organizing 'coordinated dumps'.

As our engineering teams finished up the back-end allowing people to access their BSV we had all these factors to take into consideration: It's already down to half the price of Bitcoin Cash, Craig seems willing to run it down to $0 on this bad-press tour, and the market data is erratic. The decision that followed was no surprise."

In closing adding;

"Do we need to feature 3 coins that have split our community into 3 groups arguing over which one is 'the real' Bitcoin?

I remember when Bitcoin Cash was launching I had a lunch meeting with the CEO of a massive Silicon Valley company (you know who this is, everyone does).  He asked me 'What is this Bitcoin civil war I read about yesterday?'.

After explaining and answering questions his whole attitude changed - he was in disbelief that someone could even legally pull off Roger Ver's campaign to devalue the real Bitcoin, along with his ownership of Bitcoin.com where he was selling his new coin simply as 'Bitcoin'.

It was like in the span of 10 minutes this respected person in tech went from taking cryptocurrency seriously, to seeing it as bunch of crazy kids with a lot to figure out."

So the forked coin of a forked coin didn't work out, who could have guessed? I'm not a Bitcoin minimalist by any means, and I believe it's very possible another coin will one day overtake the original Bitcoin.

That coin will not be Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV - those will go down in history as nothing more than the experiments which established a rule:a coin cannot be replaced by a new one using it's name.

There's 1 situation where this does work, take a look at Ethereum and Ether Classic. Why? Because the creator of the first version was behind the new version. Without this people only see one person trying to destroy and take over someone else's creation - that will always be met with hostility.

Any new coin calling itself Bitcoin will never have this essential endorsement from the original creator, unless the real Satoshi comes back, too bad he's dead. Yelling at people that the original coin they hold isn't 'real' and the one you made is simply does not work.

Share your thoughts on all of this with, Tweet @GlobalCryptoDev

-------
Author: Ross Davis
E-Mail: Ross@GlobalCryptoPress.com Twitter:@RossFM
San Francisco News Desk

Coinbase wants to send you to online cryptocurrency school - and pay you to do it!

Back in April we covered the story of Coinbase purchasing Earn.com for over $100 million (link) and today they've announced an entirely new way they plan to use it.

Originally, Earn revolved around a mobile app that allows users to earn cryptocurrency as a reward when they complete a survey, join a website, read an sponsors e-mail, etc - basically advertisers can use the app and pay people for participating in a variety of ways.

Today CoinBase announced their new plan for it - people can study up on the cryptocurrencies they support, and get rewarded for it.

Coinbase explains "Coinbase Earn allows users to earn cryptocurrencies, while learning about them in a simple and engaging way. The idea is for users to understand more about an asset’s utility and its underlying technology, while getting a bit of the asset to try out."

Currently, there is only 1 of these 'lessons' about cryptocurrency on the site now, this one is about 0x and comes in the form of three 2 minute videos.

There's a lot of coins today and more coming, this really could be a great way to motivate people to look into something they otherwise wouldn't have taken the time to.

You can take a look at the 0x CoinBase Earn lessons here.

-------
Author: Justin Derbek
New York News Desk

Soon you may be able to buy a piece of CoinBase - as company reportedly looks to go public and become tradable on the stock market...

The idea isn't far fetched, CoinBase's own COO Asiff Hirji said "The most obvious path for Coinbase is for us to go public at some point" - but that was late last year, the buzz died down until now.

Host of CNBC South Africa show "Crypto Trader" Ran NeuNer says he has uncovered details he will soon release that CoinBase is about to make it happen.  Saying in a tweet "CNBC Cryptotrader exposes details of the Coinbase IPO raise tomorrow on a Cryptotrader exclusive."

Another sign he may be right, is CoinBase's recent successful move to become a "Qualified Custodian" - in short, it gives them legal authority similar to a bank when it comes to holding money that belongs to it's customers.

When reaching out to one of my contacts inside CoinBase, they had no additional information, saying if it is happening, their department hasn't received any notice.

For now, the official status of CoinBase going public can only be considered "unverified" but very possible - we'll be watching for further developments.

-------
Author: Oliver Redding
Seattle News Desk