Does coinbase listed coins means they are most likely avail on nash

[Nash101]

The SEC did a very clear digital asset framework where it pointed out that if you create a market for your token it is a security, which was the last piece since by the Howey test exchange tokens already failed, they derive value from the exchange business which is centrally operated and developed not by itself.

Exactly what I thought when I read the guideline from the SEC. I was basically “holy guacamole! - this means almost everything is a security”
If regulation and the enforcement of rights are at full speed, exchanges, projects will run for their lifes.

[MaoMao (Small Kitty)]

Nash is following compliance for the future when cryptocurrencies starts to get mainstream adoption, people who wants to trade,pay,invest can securely and safely use nash knowing nash will not be shut down due to breaking the major market of U.S. laws and such. This is good fundamentally if we think long term where most exchanges will not have U.S. market because they dont fulfil the SEC rules.

[Nash101]

Absolutely and I can’t write it often enough: Being compliant globally is a huge topic for Issuers & Exchanges.
This is a topic, which hasn’t been solved yet. Solutions are in the works, but could take a long time.

[redk (red)]

Subsequent to this conversation; Binance have made changes to their BNB token model … do these changes alter the outcome of it being deemed a Security in your eyes ?

[canesin (FCC)]

No, in my personal opinion (not legal advice) it is a security by very fundamental factors. I wish Binance the best, but regarding their token they issued, promised to buy back with profits, promoted as investment and created markets for it. Just the fact that they created markets pairing with BNB on the Binance exchange makes it a security in all jurisdictions I am aware even if they had not done the things above.

That @redk is very well known, in the following post:
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets
In section "1. Reliance on the Efforts of Others" you will find:

An AP creates or supports a market for,[17] or the price of, the digital asset. This can include, for example, an AP that: (1) controls the creation and issuance of the digital asset; or (2) takes other actions to support a market price of the digital asset, such as by limiting supply or ensuring scarcity, through, for example, buybacks, “burning,” or other activities

The SEC clearly say that any burning or buyback makes it a security. Same for Europe.

[MailboxMoney]

That @redk is very well known, in the following post:
https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets
In section "1. Reliance on the Efforts of Others" you will find:

An AP creates or supports a market for,[17] or the price of, the digital asset. This can include, for example, an AP that: (1) controls the creation and issuance of the digital asset; or (2) takes other actions to support a market price of the digital asset, such as by limiting supply or ensuring scarcity, through, for example, buybacks, “burning,” or other activities

The SEC clearly say that any burning or buyback makes it a security. Same for Europe.

Exactly why “move fast and break things” doesn’t work well in fintech.

The regulators you rely on for expansion won’t be so keen to approve you if you have a checkered past. Props to the team for the foresight (and potentially impeccable timing).