TLDR
- Coinbase asks Doj to prevent cases from applying the state, citing inconsistent cryptography rules.
- The company calls on congress to adopt pre -emptive provisions in the bill on the cryptographic market.
- Coinbase’s legal thrust follows the Oregon trial for the sale of unregistered titles.
- Coinbase supports uniform regulation at the national level of digital assets to ensure market equity.
Coinbase officially asked the United States Ministry of Justice (DOJ) to take measures against the application at the state of cryptocurrency regulations. The demand follows the concerns raised by the legal director of Coinbase, Paul Grewal, concerning the growing trend of states, such as Oregon, continuing legal affairs against society despite the position of federal law on digital assets.
In a letter sent to the DoJ, Grewal argued that the federal government must intervene to prevent state agencies from imposing its own implementing measures, in particular in cases where the activities in question are legal under federal law. He specifically underlined the Oregon trial, which accused Coinbase of selling not registered titles in the state. Grewal said that this situation contradicts the principles of federalism and causes confusion in the regulatory landscape.
The Oregon trial and its broader implications
The conflict began in April when the Attorney General of Oregon filed a complaint against Coinbase, alleging that the scholarship had sold not registered titles to state residents. This statement reflected the accusations previously carried by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) American against Coinbase, but the SEC had abandoned its case earlier this year.
Despite the absence of a federal case, Oregon and several other states have taken matters into hand.
Grewal underlined the legal inconsistency that occurs when the States apply their own rules to a digital asset market which is still largely under the jurisdiction of federal law. He described this as an excessive excess of governments of the States, arguing that such actions interfere with the effective functioning of a national market and create unnecessary obstacles for companies.
Call of Coinbase for Pre -emption in new legislation on cryptography
The Coinbase Pushed to the DoJ also coincides with the ongoing discussions at the Congress concerning a new bill on the structure of the market for cryptocurrencies. Grewal has urged federal officials to argue in favor of major pre -emption provisions in any new legislation, which would guarantee that digital assets regulated by the federal government are exempt from the laws of the “Blue Sky” state.
These laws generally require registration at the state of the securities and could complicate the regulatory environment for cryptographic companies.
Pre -emption would allow uniform federal regulations across the country, eliminating the patchwork from the laws of states which, according to Coinbase, could harm the growth of the digital asset market. Grewal has also suggested that any new legislation should specify that state license requirements should not apply to cryptographic intermediaries, thus preventing states from imposing additional regulatory charges.
Push for uniform regulation of cryptography
The position of Coinbase reflects a broader desire within the cryptographic industry for coherent regulations on a national scale. Many in the industry believe that inconsistent state regulations could suffocate innovation and lead to unequal access to crypto services through the United States, including New York and California, have already promulgated state-specific license regimes for cryptography companies.
However, Coinbase and other companies argue that these rules at the state level could create confusion and hinder the effective functioning of a national cryptography market.
The company also brought prosecution to challenge what it considers as the arbitrary application of the laws of the state. In the case of Oregon, Coinbase seeks to make the case heard before the Federal Court, where he thinks that his arguments concerning the federal authority against the competence of the State will have more weight.
