I'd have far more respect if Coinbase just came out and said the truth - this will affect our profits - instead of dressing themselves up as some shining savior of privacy when they've done nothing but invade users' privacy since their inception.
They have gone down the road of weirdness and internal contradictions for so long that they cannot tell
(handle) the truth.
Of course, Coinbase has not been the bad guy in every single development in bitcoin or in crypto, since they did quite a bit of early onboarding of people into bitcoin in the 2013s, 2014s, 2015s and even further along. Also, there was a time that they were supposedly (allegedly) fighting the man in regards to keeping user information from the govt. and then later publicly denouncing the SEC for being hypocrites.
Many of the regular bitcoiners have difficulties finding any kinds of alliances with such a company that seems to be lacking in values including their getting caught in outright lies and various kinds of manipulations involving bitcoin when they were siding with the BIG blockers and engaging in shenanigans to mislead the public in the ways that they pumped Bcash.. and their baloney technical flaws in terms of seeming to "coincidentally" shut down at various times, and gosh the list goes on because there are so many examples of their seeming to lack values while they are proclaiming to have values.. and what about that fucktwat's inability to say the word bitcoin.. that's pretty fucking annoying and even misleading to be unable to say the word "bitcoin".
So yeah they are continuously attempting to find some kind of balance that makes some kind of sense, and it is likely really difficult to come even close to telling the truth when they cannot eve n reconcile their own kinds of various involvement in shitcoins and cannot make up their minds regarding the criteria that they use to add them to the platform that gets them into another kind of dance in terms having difficulties to claim their innocence regarding likely blatant breaches of securities laws (and not really trying to defend the extent of those laws but some of Coinbase's inclusion of coins could hardly have any justification.. and desire to make money as their likely only motive would be an evil motivation - that would likely be illegal to admit).
They got Blackrock involved in order to bring muscle to their historical lies and also so they can go forth with continuations in being able to lie better and with more force, influence, status (lawyers) behind the lies.. and the various ways to suck and blow at the same time.. no matter which constituency they are attempting to screw - governments, institutions, customers, workers, the general public or any other constituency that they can leech off of that I have left out.
I guess my main point for the reasons above and likely some other reasons as well is that "they cannot tell
(handle) the truth." they would need to have a lot of "come to Jesus" moments.. and the truth would likely get a lot of them into pretty BIG troubles from several directions... maybe it would have to be like an addict going to AA meetings... "Hi. My name is Coinbase (Brian Armstrong) and here are the many different ways that I have been a degenerate who has been evil to myself and evil to everyone in my surroundings."
So yeah coincidentally some of their actions might seem to be good for the public as a whole, if they are fighting back in regards to various ways that they (Coinbase) feels that they have been disadvantaged in some governmental actions that are too broadsweeping, so of course, framing the matter in terms of some of the broad principles of privacy is not necessarily a bad thing - even when we also know that when company make lawsuits against the government or even against other institutions they will have a variety of attorneys and consultants helping them to weigh the pros and cons of presenting certain kinds of arguments, and some of those arguments will be stronger than other arguments and some of the arguments might contradict other arguments.. but there does not tend to be any legal requirement that all of your arguments have to be consistent... and sometimes lawyers will purposefully choose not to make certain arguments because there might not be much if any upside to making the argument even if the argument could be a factor to consider in the theoretical sense.