There wasn't a need to "define a new regulatory framework that actually fits" because, funnily enough, the existing regulatory framework already fits. It turns out, inventing new words doesn't actually change the fundamental nature of the thing you're describing. Refusing to call something an "investment" doesn't change the fact that you're selling an investment, refusing to call something a "security" doesn't prevent it from being a security if it meets the definition.

Edit: Sorry, let me address that ridiculous point about Coinbase "asking for clarity" directly. Yes, Coinbase repeatedly "asked for clarity" in the same manner as a dude in a girl's DMs repeatedly asking for nudes while being told in the bluntest of terms to fuck off. They were given perfectly clear answers, they just didn't like them, so they kept claiming, with zero fucking basis, that these will laid out rules that every financial institution has been following for decades were somehow "unclear" to them. It was a conversation not unlike a Sovereign Citizen trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that they don't understand where the officer's authority comes from. The law is prefectly clear. If you don't understand the law, you hire a lawyer who does. That's a cost of doing business. Sticking "smart" in front the of the word "contract" doesn't suddenly invent a whole new field of law. I can't suddenly get away with murder because I call it "crypto murder". The law is based on what you do, not what you call it.

That's fair, but hardly so aggressive that I'd call it a "crypto crackdown."

But it's hardly unexpected to see lawsuits around unsettled law. Everyone should expect more as we start settling case law and bringing crypto inline with existing law.

Also, wasn't it mostly centered around their non-exchange activities? Press release specifically mentions their "Staking-as-a-Service" offering. Not that I see anything wrong with it, but I could see how that could be considered a security. Doesn't really pass the Howey test.