In a surprising turn of events, Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer (CLO), Paul Grewal, has presented an unusual defense in the court case against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States. Grewal thinks that one important factor in contesting the SEC’s expanded definition of securities may be collectibles, particularly Pokémon cards.
Grewal argues that tokens and collectibles, such as Pokémon cards, have an ecosystem that adds value to both. The SEC claims that this component helps to classify some tokens as securities. Grewal, however, thinks that this viewpoint is erroneous and that it may be refuted by looking at the environment that surrounds collectibles.
The backdrop of this unique argument lies in Coinbase’s legal entanglement with the SEC. Accused of operating as an unregistered broker and violating securities laws, Coinbase has been navigating a complex legal landscape since June.
The crux of the matter centers on the definition of securities. Coinbase asserts that the tokens in question lack security status due to the absence of signed contracts between sellers and buyers in secondary markets. In contrast, the SEC broadens its understanding of securities, citing the existence of an ecosystem behind these tokens as a critical factor.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla had doubts about the SEC’s broader definition during the original hearing, pointing out the possible danger of classifying even collectibles as securities. In order to bolster his doubts, Grewal cites an article titled “Into the Not-So-Wild World of Pokémon,” which emphasizes how Pokémon cards—like tokens—have developed into ecosystems and challenges the SEC’s position.
Grewal’s thesis highlights that collectibles such as Pokémon cards are also subject to the idea of an ecosystem supporting value, rather than just tokens. Coinbase hopes to refute the SEC’s story and change the conversation on what constitutes securities by comparing the two.