Ask Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong)

In fact, I wrote this tweet the day before yesterday, but there were some things that needed to be communicated with @CoinbaseSG colleagues, so I am reissuing it, more complete and more reflective of Brian's original words.

The day before yesterday, Brian visited the Coinbase SG office, and I was honored to be one of the interviewees, able to chat face-to-face with Brian and ask him questions. Of course, what I write here is just my own questions; there were several good questions raised by other interviewees, and if authorized, I can discuss those later.

With the permission of Coinbase SG, I will share three questions with my colleagues, including Brian's answers and my personal feelings:

1. CRS issues that Asian users, especially Asian users after registering for Coinbase, may involve.

2. Concerns users have about account restrictions and account freezing issues.

3. Brian's views on early versions of the market structure bill, including topics related to the CLARITY Act.

The following content is my personal recollection and summary of the on-site discussion and does not represent Coinbase's official statement, policy announcement, or tax and legal opinions. Specific applicable rules may vary by region, account type, and point in time; everyone should refer to relevant laws and regulations, regulatory requirements, and Coinbase's official notifications.

1. CRS and Coinbase SG

Some people might wonder why I would raise what seems to be an obvious question. Since the U.S. is generally not considered a CRS participating jurisdiction, one might naturally think that Asian users registering for Coinbase would not involve CRS-related issues.

However, this understanding may not be complete. Coinbase's compliant operations in Asia are primarily centered on Singapore, where many Asian users complete their registration and account opening processes through Coinbase SG rather than directly establishing relationships through the U.S. Coinbase entity. Singapore is a CRS participating jurisdiction, which is why I asked whether registering through Coinbase SG could involve CRS-related arrangements.

According to explanations during the discussion, for the digital asset activities involved this time, there is currently no information exchange through CRS 1.0. The key distinction here is that traditional financial activities falling within the scope of CRS 1.0 may need to be reported according to applicable rules and may involve information exchange with relevant tax authorities. In contrast, cryptocurrency, digital assets, and activities referenced by digital assets are not within the scope of CRS 1.0.

My personal understanding is that CRS 1.0 does not involve any content related to cryptocurrencies. Many colleagues already know this; however, there is still CRS 2.0, and currently, some countries have not participated in the signing of CRS 2.0, so temporarily, CRS 2.0 does not significantly impact some Asian users, especially users in China.

CARF also follows a similar direction; different judicial jurisdictions may have different approaches to relevant information reporting and exchange frameworks, and specific arrangements may also adjust with changes in laws, regulations, and regulatory requirements. Regarding CARF, it should also be judged based on whether the relevant judicial jurisdiction has adopted the applicable framework, as well as the specific activities and account types.

The above content is only a summary of the on-site discussion and does not constitute any tax or legal advice, nor does it represent conclusions on any specific region or user situation.

2. Account Restrictions and Small Transfers

I also specifically inquired about small transfer issues related to HTX, which were mentioned online by some users. According to my understanding, Coinbase has established corresponding control measures and review processes for such situations, and affected accounts can seek resolution through the appeal process.

Brian explained that Coinbase has maintained high compliance standards because if compliance issues arise, the company may face serious regulatory and legal consequences. Whether specific accounts require additional review will be judged on a case-by-case basis according to applicable compliance requirements, account activities, and risk controls. Meanwhile, he noted that related experiences have significantly improved over the past six months, and Coinbase has optimized the handling processes for such small transfer situations.

However, this does not mean that accounts will never be restricted in the future. Specific accounts still need to undergo compliance reviews based on actual situations, and the final results may depend on the specific facts of each case.

The discussion also mentioned customer support, including Chinese customer service support. According to my understanding, Coinbase is working to strengthen related resources and improve response times.

However, any response times mentioned in the on-site discussion should not be understood as formal service level commitments.

3. Brian's Views on the Market Structure Bill

I asked my last question quite directly: why did Brian not support early versions of the market structure bill before? Does this relate to interests concerning USDC? Is he aware that it is commonly believed that the bill's passage could significantly improve industry sentiment and bring in more funds?

Brian's answer was also very direct. He stated that due to his previous voting stance, he had received criticism, including abusive phone calls, and faced considerable criticism online and on X. However, he emphasized that he did not support the early version of the bill because there was still room for improvement on some important issues in its clauses. He also made it clear that this should not be interpreted as him opposing the current version of the CLARITY Act.

He especially mentioned the issue of stablecoin yields. In his view, a blanket prohibition on providing yields to holders of payment stablecoins should not be applied. He believes there is a need to push for adjustments to related clauses to secure better conditions, and he expressed that related clauses have improved due to these efforts.

According to the version currently being discussed, if an account completes at least one qualifying transaction or transfer in the past 90 days, it may be recognized as an active account and may qualify to directly earn yields from its stablecoin balance.

However, this clause has not yet been finalized or approved, so it should not be interpreted as an effective policy.

Based on Brian's latest statements, he believes that the current clauses have shown significant improvement and expressed a willingness to support the bill's passage if the final text maintains the current direction.

Therefore, at least regarding the situation of the CLARITY Act, there is no resistance from Brian; he has shown support for this version, which also indicates that the conflict between stablecoins and banks is beginning to be mitigated.

I will share the remaining content with everyone when there is an opportunity.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。